SANYUKT NIRMATA Vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Indian Institute of Technology (I.I.T., for short) awarded a contract to M/s. Sanyukt Nirmata (hereinafter referred to as 'the Contractor') for the construction of certain blocks in the I.I.T. Campus, The contract, valued at Rs. 30,37,580.00was based on the acceptance, on 29-10 81, of a tender submitted by the Contractor supplemented by the general conditions and specifications covering government contracts and the letters of the Contractor dated 14-9-81, 5-10-81 and 19-10-81. The work under the contract was completed on 7-10 83.

(2.) Certain disputes having arisen between the parties as to the payments to be made to the Contractor, they were referred for arbitration under Clause 25 of the contract. The second respondent to the suit, a retired Chief Engineer, was the Arbitrator who, after hearing the parties, made an award on 15-12-84. The award has been filed in the Court and comes up now for consideration in the light of the objections preferred by the Contractor.

(3.) There were 12 items dealt with by the Arbitrator in the award. In this suit the issues were originally framed so as to cover items 5, 8, 10 and 12. But now item 12 is no longer in controversy. By an order dated 1-11-85, the award in respect of item 12 has been modified to read as Rs. 1,410.00 instead of Rs. 1,610.00correcting a clerical mistake. Also, by an order dated 9-12-85 it has been pointed that the petitioner was ready to accept the awarded amount in respect of claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 and 12 together with interest thereon calculated upto December 31, 1984 in full and final settlement of the aforesaid claims and the respondent paid the amount to the Contractor by a cheque in the Court itself. Thus the controversy in regard to all these items has been resolved. There is no controversy regardings Item Nos. 4, 7 and 11. The entire controversy, therefore, now centres around the three items 5, 8 and 10. Before proceeding to deal with these items and the objections thereto, I may dispose of a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the I I.T., relying on Ramsahai Shednram v. HarisSichandra Dull Chandji and another1 that it is not open to the Contractor to accept the pait of the award which is in its favour but to object to other parts of it which are not, This objection may have some validity in cases where there is a single composite award or there are interim and final awards and it is difficult to ascertain either the decision of the Arbitrator on each of the issues or the precise impact of the decision on one of the issues on his decision vis-a-vis the other issues. But I see no force in this objection in respect of the award in the present case. Here the claims before the Arbitrator that arose out of the same contract were different and independent of one another. As required by the contract, the Arbitrator has considered each item separately and given his separate finding on each of them. No decision on any claim objected to now has anything to do with or affected by the decision of a claim which has been accepted by the Contractor. I can see nothing in law in the case of such an award which requires either party to an award to plead either for the acceptance of the award as a whole or its rejection as a whole. It would indeed be curious to suggest that where a party is aggrieved by only some, but not all, of the decisions arrived at by the Arbitrator, he cannot be permitted to challenge only that part of the award by which he is aggrieved but should either take or reject the award as a whole. In the case of a severable award like this, the position is virtually the same as if there are separate awards in respect of the several items in dispute. The principle of severeability of an award is now well settled (vide Mattapalli Chelainayya and another v. MatfapaJli Venkataratnam and another2 M/s. Metro Electric. Company v. Delhi Development Authority3 and M/s. Mehta Teja Singh and Co. v. Union of India. 4 (para 31) This principle should be liberally and widely implemented so as to facilitate expeditious disposal and substantial justice. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the contention urged on behalf of the I IT has no force and that the Contractor can be permitted to Challenge only the three items of the decision by which he is aggrieved.