T.B. Suntwal vs Food Corporation Of India
1995 Latest Caselaw 602 Del

JUDGMENT

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

(1) On 13.1.1992 Award has been passed by the Arbitrator. In paragraph 40 of the Award relating to the interest on the amounts awarded by him, the Arbitrator stated thus "Accordingly, the respondent shall pay an interest of 15% per annum towards the outstanding security deposit from 22.2.88 to 15.3.91." The claimant contractor approached the Arbitrator for the rectification under Section 13 of the Arbitration Act staling the interest should be not only on the security amount deposited but also on the outstanding bills. The parties appeared before the Arbitrator and left to the Arbitrator to decide on the question. The Arbitrator on 18.3.92 passed the following order : "ACCORDINGLY,a simple interest @ 15% per annum is awarded towards outstanding security deposit and outstanding bills pertaining to Claim No. 2 from 22.2.88 up to 15.3.91."

(2) This is to set right the record. The Arbitrator was appointed pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Suit No. 1680/85 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. We are concerned with Claim Nos. 1,2,9, 11 and 14 (which relates to interest).

(3) It is common ground relating to Claims 9 and 11 the parties had agreed and there was no contest.

(4) What remained for discussion by the Court was with reference to claims I, 2 and 14 and the counter claim made by the respondent-Food Corporation of India.

(5) On claim No. 1, the Arbitrator directed the refund of security deposit to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh. The Arbitrator dealt with this claim in paragraph 12 of the award and it reads as follows :-

(6) It was contended on behalf of the respondent Fci that whosoever payment had been made by the Fci and that was no given credit to by the Arbitrator. From the paragraph extracted above, it is clear that the Arbitrator had come to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 3,50,404.94 was payable by the respondent to the contractor on the basis of mutual agreement. That can not be now canalised by the respondent. What is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent is that as a matter of fact extra payment had been made and that will be known from a perusal of the bills. Such an argument can not at all be advanced when the decision of the Arbitrator, as recorded by him, is on mutual agreement. Therefore, the objection of the respondent relating to the award of the Arbitrator with regard to Claim No. 2 is rejected.

(7) The respondent made counter claims against the contractor. On counter Claim No. 2 Rs. 2,03,119.24 was claimed by the respondent. The Arbitrator had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,01,596.00.

(8) The objection by the respondent is that a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs is payable towards damages on counter Claim No. 2 and the Arbitrator had wrongfully proceeded on the basis that only Rs. 2 lakhs and odd was claimed by the ' respondent.

(9) The learned Counsel for the petitioner-contractor submitted neither in the written statement to Suit No. 1680/85 u/Section 20 of the Arbitration Act nor before the Arbitrator anything more than Rs. 2,03,199.24 was claimed by the respondent. Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that the Arbitrator ought to have awarded more than what is awarded can not at all be entertained. I seek force in this argument. The learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in , Orissa Mining Corporation v. (sic) that Arbitrator can not act beyond the terms of the order of reference. The dictum laid down by the Supreme Court would squarely apply to this case.

(10) Relating to Claim No. 14, no argument was advanced on behalf of the respondent.

(11) Accordingly, the award passed by the Arbitrator is confirmed and is made rule of the Court. There shall be a decree directing the respondents to pay the sum of Rs. 3,75,564.22 with interest @ 15% per annum from 22.2.1988 to 15.3.1991 to the Contractor-petitioner with further interest @ 15% per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment. Suit and IAs. disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.