TEXMACO LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present application, petitioner-claimant has filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1940") challenging the Award dated 30th January, 1997 rendered by Mr. Justice Hari Swarup (retired), sole Arbitrator.

(2.) Mr. Sumit Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner-claimant submitted that the sole Arbitrator had misconstrued and misconstructed the contract executed between the parties, in particular, Clauses 20.2, 39.1 56 and 57 which are reproduced herein below :-

(3.) Mr. Sen further submitted that the decision of the Engineer-in- charge did not fall within the category of excepted matters as the petitioner-claimant had carried out under protest the modifications suggested by the Engineer-in-charge in excess of the contractual specifications. He submitted that as the petitioner-claimant had contemporaneously raised protest against the Engineer-in-charges decision, the Arbitrators finding in the impugned Award that the Engineer-in-charges decision could not be challenged because the said decision had been implemented by the petitioner-claimant, was clearly erroneous. In this context, Mr. Sen referred to the petitioner-claimants two letters dated 7th September, 1983 and 31st January, 1984 which, in fact, had been noted by the learned Single Judge while referring the dispute to arbitration. The relevant portion of the said two letters are reproduced herein below :-