INDIAN ALUMUNIUM CABLES LIMITED Vs. STATE ELECT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s.indian Aluminium Cable Limited, the petitioner herein, had offered to supply ACSR conductors 'Panther' size 30/7/3.00 mm conforming to IS: 398/1961 with latest amendment thereof in quantity 496 kilometers at the rate of Rs-4,390 per kilometer exclusive of excise duty and central sales tax totaling Rs.21,77,440.00. This offer was confirmed by the Superintending Engineer/Design for Chief Engineer(P&C), Haryana Stale Electricity Board, Chandigarh on 4.8.1972 vide its purchase order No.170/9999/T-349. Under this purchase order certain disputes had arisen between the partics which, as per the arbitration agreement contained in the purchase order, Were liable to be referred to arbitration. One arbitrator each was to be appointed by the respective parties and the third was to be appointed by the President of the Institute of Engineers. The respondent No. 1 by notice dated 26th July, 1976 called upon the petitioner to make payment of Rs-37,61,465.60 paise which was stated to be the amount allegedly due to the said respondent from the petitioner under the contract. It .was stated that in case the petitioner disputed the liability to pay this amount, it should appoint an arbitrator of its choice within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice to the respondent No.1. By the said letter, the respondent No.1 had appointed Shri V.P. Luthra, Superintending Engineer(0peration Circle), Haryana State Electricity Board as its arbitrator. It appears that subsequently the Haryana State Electricity Board had appointed Mr-J.K.Bahri as its arbitrator. Under what circumstances, Mr. V.P. Luthra was replaced by Mr. J.K. Bahri as arbitrator of respondent No.1 is not clear from the record. However, that is not a point in controversy in the present petition.

(2.) THE petitioner appointed Mr. C.M. Lodha as its arbitrator and Mr. O.P. Puri was appointed as an arbitrator by the Institute of Engineers. Respondent No.l filed its statement of claim before the arbitrators. In the statement of claim, the respondent has claimed a sum of Rs.39,26,365.75 paise being the total price difference for 496 kilometers for Panther conductors. resides the said amount, penalty at the rate of 10% of the contract price amounting to Rs.2,17,744.00 was also claimed. THE respondent also claimed interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1.7.1974 to 1.3.1991 thus making a total claim of Rs.l,25,98,091.00 allegedly payable by the petitioner to the said respondent No.1.

(3.) IT is beyond comprehension as to how the Order dated 26.10.1991 passed by the arbitrators can be an interim award. Any award which is passed by the arbitrators, whether interim or final, can be filed in Court under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act and after the same is filed, the Court has power to either modify the same under Section 15 of the Act or to remit it under Section 16. Where the Court sees no reason to remit the award, or any of the matters referred to arbitration, for reconsideration or to set aside or modify the award, the Court has no option but to pronounce judgment according to the award and upon the judgment so pronounced, a decree shall follow. Decree can be pronounced either on the basis of interim award or on the basis of the final award. In my opinion, BO decree can follow in case the said order dated 26.10.1991 passed by the arbitrators is held to be an award. In case no decree can follow to my mind, by no stretch of imagination this order can be said to be an interim award. I, therefore, reject the contention of the petitioner that the order dated 26.10.1991 is an interim award.