Arbitration award upheld despite challenge, costs set aside under contract clause, notice service findings deemed plausible

Delhi HC dismissed appellant's challenge to arbitration award. Court held that no pre-litigation interest was actually awarded, and appellant's counsel conceded this point. Award of costs was set aside per contract clause 118.4. Regarding time limitation, HC found arbitration tribunal's factual findings on notice service were plausible and not perverse, noting Section 34 courts don't sit as appellate courts to re-examine tribunal's fact-finding. Tribunal properly found notices were served by registered post with presumption under Section 27 General Clauses Act. Appeal dismissed without merit.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against the judgment dismissing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Validity of the Arbitral Award granting interest and costs against the contract.
3. Timeliness of the claim petition filed by the respondent.
4. Recognition of the acknowledgment of liability by the Arbitration Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. The appellant objected to the Arbitral Award dated 27.08.2016, which favored the respondent in a dispute regarding the construction of an IT Park. The appellant argued that the Award, including interest and costs, was against the contract terms, making it illegal. However, the court cited a previous judgment stating that clauses barring interest payment are illegal under the Indian Contract Act. Notably, the Award did not grant pre-litigation interest, resolving this issue.

2. Regarding the costs awarded to the respondent, it was agreed to set them aside based on a specific clause in the contract. This decision was made in accordance with Clause 118.4 of the contract, thereby addressing the concern raised by the appellant.

3. The timeliness of the claim petition was contested by the appellant, questioning the service of notices dated 20.09.2010 and 28.09.2010. The Arbitration Tribunal extensively examined this issue, concluding that the notices were duly served based on the evidence presented. The court emphasized that it does not reassess factual findings unless they are grossly illegal or perverse, affirming the Tribunal's conclusion on the timeliness of the claim petition.

4. Lastly, the acknowledgment of liability by the appellant was a key contention. The Tribunal's detailed analysis and findings on the service of notices resolved this issue, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that no valid objections could be raised under Section 34 of the Act regarding the service of notices.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed based on the comprehensive analysis of the issues raised, affirming the Arbitration Tribunal's findings and decisions.

---