PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. PRIME ENGINEERS CONSULTANTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred as the "Act"), the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred as "PNB") questions the decision of the learned Single Judge/adjudicating its objections to two separate awards, rendered by one common Tribunal. The Tribunal adjudicated the disputes with respect to two works contracts awarded by PNB - first related to the Office premises (in Branch Office) and the other Staff Quarters.

(2.) The disputes, which were the subject matter of arbitration proceedings before the Tribunal, were contracts entered into on 19.05.1994. The respondent (hereinafter called the "Contractor"), which was entrusted with the execution of works, demanded various amounts as due and payable by PNB, later disputed its liability and primarily contended - in the arbitration proceedings, that some of the claims were barred on account of the Clause 5.46 since they fall in the category of "excepted matters". With respect to the other claims, various other objections were raised. The Tribunal adjudicated all these and granted different amounts to the Contractor (Rs. 31 lakhs in respect of the premises for branch and Rs. 16 lakhs in respect of the Staff Quarter Complex). The PNB agreed and had approached this court under Section 34. In those proceedings contentions urged were mainly three fold; firstly, that the award so far as it dealt with delayed execution, was an "accepted matter" and, that the Tribunal had proceeded beyond the contract; likewise the Award of interest in respect of the delay in the refund of earnest money deposited and security amount, was inadmissible under the contract; and lastly, that the Tribunal patently erred in law in discarding the expressly agreed price variation clause (Clause 5.41) in both the contracts and goes on ahead in the simpler arithmetical calculation on the subject.

(3.) The learned Single Judge noticed PNB's primary objections with respect to the arbitrability in having regard to Clause 5.46 but proceeded and rejected in the following terms: