UNION OF INDIA Vs. ANUPAM BUILDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD forthwith. The petitioner Union of India have impugned various claims awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal by its Award dated 10-8-2002. For the purpose of deciding the controversies, it may be pointed out that the main challenge advanced at the bar though other challenges have been raised in the petition, but not argued may be summarized under the following heads : (a) Claim No. 2 which forms ground (e) in respect of award for sand from other than at Mumbra. (b) Claim No. 8 which is ground (h) in the petition. (c) Claim No. 10 which is the subject-matter of grounds (a) and (b ). It is contended that this was an excepted matter and consequently could not have been the subject-matter of reference before the arbitrator. (d) Claim 13 which is again raised and forms ground raised in grounds (a), (b)and (c ). In addition it is pointed out that after rejecting the claim 6 and 13, claim 13 could not have been awarded. (e) Claim No. 16 is in respect of interest. It is contended that interest could not have been awarded on damages. With the above, we may consider the challenges.

(2.) IN so far as claim 2 is concerned, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners by their learned Counsel that the respondents were not bound to bring only sand from Mumbra. They could have brought it from other places. However, option was available to bring it from Mumbra and if brought from elsewhere, the price would be the same and consequently the respondents could not claim amounts for sand brought from outside Mumbra. The learned arbitrator has addressed himself to the issue and the contentions raised therein by the petitioner's. The learned Arbitrator found that on account of action by statutory authorities sand at Mumbra was not available and it is under those circumstances, that the respondents who ordinarily would have brought sand from Mumbra had to get it from other places at considerable cost. Considering the reasons and finding given and as the respondents had to bring the sand for reasons beyond their control other than from Mumbra, it would not be fit case for this Court to interfere. The Award to that extent cannot be said to be beyond the terms of the contract. The challenge in so far as Claim No. 2 is concerned, will have to be rejected.

(3.) WE then come to Claim No. 8. In this claim, the learned arbitrator has assessed loss suffered by respondents on account of failure by the petitioners to make payments within time stipulated in Condition No. 64. The learned counsel for the petitioner had sought to place reliance on Condition No. 65. Condition No. 65 applies to final bill and not to running bills. The learned arbitrator has addressed himself to the question and consequently, I find no reason to interfere with the said finding as he has considered the correct clause, namely Clause 64 in awarding the said amounts.