BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED Vs. TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge made in this intra-Court appeal is to the order of the learned Single Judge, dtd. 4/1/2022 in Arb.O.P (Com.Div) No.297 of 2021, whereby, the learned Single Judge rejected the prayer under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to 'A&C Act') to set aside the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, dtd. 23/2/2021.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that pursuant to a Letter of Intent, dtd. 30/3/2001, an agreement, dtd. 24/9/2001 was entered into by the appellant and the respondent relating to cable works at Annanagar Division of the appellants. In relation to a dispute pertaining to non-payment for execution of the work, the respondent herein invoked the arbitration clause and made a monitory claim of principle outstanding of Rs.42,25,581.00 along with interest thereon at 18% p.a. As a matter of fact, since similar claims were made with regard to sea sand filling and excess earth removal by cable laying contractors and PSUs, a Committee was set up by the appellants by its communication, dtd. 24/3/2004 and the said Committee also submitted its report recommending the release of such claims. Even thereafter, the amounts were not released. Therefore, the respondent raised a dispute and the same was referred to the sole Arbitrator, appointed by the appellants herein, who rejected all the claims of the respondent. The said award, dtd. 4/3/2013 was set aside by this Court by an order, dtd. 6/10/2016 and subsequently, de novo proceedings were ordered by appointing a learned Retired Judge of this Court as an Arbitrator.

(3.) In the second round of arbitration, the respondent filed a Claim Petition seeking to pass an award in terms of the amounts claimed by it under Annexure-A to the claim statement along with pendente lite and post award interest. A counter statement was filed by the appellants to the claim statement. In the counter statement, the appellants contended that the overhead charges payable to the respondent was 9% on cash component and 4% on stores component of the project cost. Subsequently, the overhead charges payable to the respondent was reduced and fixed through tenders and negotiations. Hereafter, the respondent was entitled to service charges at the appropriate percentage on the cash and stores component of the project cost of each work. However, the respondent arbitrarily claimed the quantum of sea sand in terms of cubic meters and therefore, certain bills were disallowed. He further stated that the M-Book, containing the routine certificate, and the SDE / DE certification were done separately which elevated the cost by about 75% of the bill amount.