SAI ENTERPRISES Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these petitions both the parties have challenged the second award dated 29. 7. 2006 passed by the sole arbitrator Shri S. V. Joshi between the parties arising out of the same contract.

(2.) AS disputes arose in reference to construction of underground cable duct at rabale-Thane-Cherai (I)/nb-01/1203/8/ 8. 11. 1996, the matter was referred to an arbitrator one Shri D. N. Joshi. By an award dated 21. 7. 2002, after considering the rival contentions and material placed on record by the parties, out of total claims, the Arbitrator had awarded the following claims: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_390_BCR6_2007Html1.htm</FRM> Net amount to be paid by the respondents to the claimants is (Rs. 5,70,133-Rs. 10,314. 00)Rs. 5,59,819. 00 Costs of Arbitration are awarded to the claimants at Rs. 30,000/-making the total amount of award as Rs. 5,89,819. 00. " 2-A. The Arbitrator has also rejected the counter claim filed by the Mahanagar Telephone nigam Limited for short, "mtnl") in arbitration Petition No. 417/2006 and the petitioner in Arbitration Petition No. 433/2006. The petitioner in Arbitration Petition no. 417/2006 who is respondent in Arbitration petition No. 433/2006 is the contractor in question (for short, "the Contractor") who, being aggrieved by the same has challenged the award by Arbitration Petition No. 205/2003. MTNL admittedly made no challenge to the first award (for short, "the first award" ). This Court, after considering the rival contentions and submissions raised by the parties as challenge was restricted to two items viz. (i) award of Rs. 10,314/- to the respondents against counter claim made by the respondents and (ii) rejection of the claim of the petitioners for compensation at 3% of the cost on account of idle overheads, allowed the petition of the contractor, in the following words:

(3.) MTNL in view of this appointed one shri S. V. Joshi (second Arbitrator) to decide, make and modify the award as shown in the statement enclosed subject to admissibility under Clause 25 of the agreement with a condition that the Arbitrator should give reasons for the award.