HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED Vs. ETPM A FOREIGN COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under section 33 read with section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the petitioner has impugned Award dated 25th June, 1992 passed by Shri Y. V. Chandrachud, Retired Chief Justice of India and Shri J. G. Gadkari, Joint Arbitrator appointed by the parties. The relevant facts required to be stated for the purpose of appreciating the contentions urged at the bare as briefly summarised below:

(2.) SHRI Venkiteswaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned Award discloses error of law apparent on the face of the Award in so far as the learned Arbitrators awarded interest in respect of the claim made by the respondent for the first time by their letter dated 4th May, 1990. The learned Counsel has developed this contention by inviting attention of the Court to the fact that the contract does not provide for payment of interest and by contending that the late payments were accepted by the respondents unreservedly and without any protest.

(3.) THE case of the respondent on this aspect of the matter is supported also by the ratio of judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of (Superintending Engineer, Somasila Project, Nellore District v. Ramana Reddy) reported in A. I. R. 1990 Andhra Pradesh 183. In the case of (State of Orissa v. Uchhalia Pradhan) A. I. R. 1991 Supreme Court 1026, the Honourable Mr. Justice Lalit Mohan Sharma (As His Lordship then was) observed as under: