CALCUTTA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. HARIPADA MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for setting aside an award dt. 20th Feb. 1987 made by the Umpire. In this matter the respondent raised claims in respect of the work carried on by the respondent and completed on or about 30th June, 1977. The disputes regarding the said claims were originally referred to the joint Arbitrators. The joint Arbitrators made two different awards. Inasmuch as there was difference of opinion between the arbitrators. The disputes were referred to an Umpire who made his award on 20th Feb. 1987. Before the Arbitrators the respondent filed his claim for a sum of Rs. 2, 60, 033.95 p. on two heads. A sum of Rs. 2,39,901.32 p. was claimed against Item No. I of the supplementary tender No. 1 that is leaving shoring. On account of unjustified deduction made in lengths and breadths of RCC pipe a sum of Rs. 20, 131.73 p. was claimed thus aggregating to a sum of Rs. 2, 60, 033.95 p. A further sum of Rs. 2, 21, 028/was claimed by way of interest on the aforesaid sum aggregating to a total claim of Rs. 4, 81,061/-. The fact that such a claim was made by the respondent appears from para 2 of the petition. The learned Umpire passed, a non-speaking award whereby he awarded a sum of Rs. 2, 53, 427/- in full and final settlement of the claim. He further directed that in case the payment could not be made within a period of 90 days from the date of publication of the award the respondent should pay the claimant interest at the rate of 10%. On the said sum of Rs. 2, 53, 427/- from the date of publication of the award till the date of payment on decree by the Court on the award whichever is earlier.

(2.) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that although the award is a non-speaking award the said award is open to challenge inasmuch as it appears that the award made by the arbitrators and also the statement of claim of property taken into account would show that the amount awarded is excessive. He further submitted that there is apparent mistake in the sum so awarded being Rs. 2, 53, 427/-. Had proper calculation been made the said amount could not have been more than Rs. 2, 24, 000/-. He further submitted that the said sum Rs. 2, 53, 427/- really includes the amount of interest which should not have been included within the said amount so awarded. THE learned Advocate in this connection relied upon a judgment and decision in the case of Executive Engineer, Galimala v. Abnaduta Jena reported in AIR 1988 SC 1520 (1521). In that case it was held that in the cases to which the 1978 Interest Act applies the award of interest prior to the proceeding is not open to question. In regard to pendente lite interest that is interest on the date of reference to the date of the award, the claimant would not be entitled to the same for the simple reason that arbitrator is not a court within the meaning of Section 34 of C.P.C., nor were the reference to arbitration made in the course of suits. THE learned Advocate relying upon the said judgment of the Supreme Court submitted that the said amount awarded namely, Rs. 2,53, 427/- includes the amount of interest awarded on the claim also. Otherwise the said figure could not have been awarded by the arbitrator. I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner. In my opinion there is no apparent error on the face of the award which calls for interference by this Court. As appears from paragraph 2 of the petition itself that the respondent filed a claim of a sum of Rs. 2, 60.033.95 p. on two heads and he further claimed a sum of Rs. 2, 21, 028/- by way of interest on the aforesaid sum aggregating to a total of Rs. 4, 81, 061/-. Out of the said claim a sum of Rs. 2,53,427/- has been awarded. It cannot be said that the said sum includes pendente lite interest. In this connection reference may be made to the judgment and decision in the case of State of Orissa v. M/s. Lal Bros., AIR 1988 SC 2018. In that case the award was challenged as unreasoned but the award being a lump sum award the court refused to interfere. THE Supreme Court also observed as follows :

(3.) THE judgment upon Award matter is adjourned till 9th May, 1989. Since I have already adjourned the judgment upon award matter, in my opinion it is not necessary to pass any order for stay as prayed for. Petition dismissed.