SIEMENS LTD Vs. SOUTH INDIA CEMENTS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit was registered on a petition under Sections 14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing and making the arbitral award dated 30th June,1993 rule of the court. On the award being filed in this court and notice of filing thereof being given to the parties the respondent M/s South India Cements Ltd. filed IA No.8418/1994 under Sections 30 & 33 of the 1940 for setting aside of the award. The pleadings in the said application completed and the usual issues framed on 19th July, 1995. The petitioner, M/s Siemens Ltd. did not file any objections to the award and has during the hearing also supported the award. However, application being IA No.1300/2009 has been filed by the petitioner for award of interest at 18 % per annum from the date of the award and for the period during which the proceedings for making it a rule of the court have remained pending and till payment of the amount. The counsel for the respondent had on 3rd November,1995 informed the court that the respondent had been declared a sick company within the meaning of SICA, 1985 and had been referred to the BIFR. Subsequently, IA No.8788/2000 was filed by the respondent under Section 22 of SICA, 1985 for suspension of the present proceedings. However, on 27th March, 2001 the said application was withdrawn in light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in M/s Lloyd Insulations (India) Ltd. Vs. Cement Corporation of India Ltd. 90 (2001) DLT 1 (DB) with liberty to file a fresh application but neither any fresh application was filed nor any argument in this regard was raised at the time of hearing.

(2.) To complete the narration it may also be stated that the arbitrator who has rendered the award was appointed vide an order dated 15th April, 1991 of this court in suit No.387A/1989. The arbitrator so appointed was a technical rather than a legal person and it is also not disputed that he during the arbitration, on 2nd & 3rd July, 1992 carried out inspection of the cement plant of the respondent to inspect the works carried out by the petitioner therein and also directed the petitioner to carry out certain works.

(3.) The disputes arose between the parties out of a contract dated 1st May,1985/2nd August,1985 between the parties, containing a provision for arbitration. The respondent was setting up a cement plant at Malkhed, Karnataka and had vide contract aforesaid appointed the petitioner as Electrical Contractor for the said proposed cement plant, to do detailed designing and engineering and to supply certain electrical equipment and to erect and commission the same. The said contract in Clause 7.7 of General Conditions of Contract provided for arbitration to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the parties with mutual consent and upon the parties being unable to mutually agree, to the sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Chairman & Managing Director of Engineers India Ltd. (EIL) who were appointed as the Engineer In-charge or Consulting Engineer by the respondent with respect to the proposed cement plant. There was no requirement in the said arbitration clause for the arbitrator to give a reasoned or speaking award. There was no such requirement in the Arbitration Act, 1940 also. However, the parties are ad-idem that they jointly requested the arbitrator on 11th April, 1992 to give a reasoned award. The list in this regard between the parties is only to the extent, whether the arbitrator was bound by the said request of the parties or not.