9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: The judgment involves issues related to interference with the award on three specific matters - swapping usage of crane, overrun charges, and interest.
Interference with Award on Overrun Charges: The Arbitrator's award was challenged due to the deduction of sums on two counts - crane-hire charges and overrun charge. The learned Judge found that overrun charges could not be claimed or awarded as per the agreement's Clause 9. The tribunal erred in entertaining this claim, leading to the decision being set aside. Swapping Usage of Crane: Regarding the swapping usage of the crane, it was observed that there was no specific bar in the agreement for claiming hire charges for the third unit. The tribunal did not address this legal issue properly, and the facility of the crane was extended without proper notice of charges. The deduction of crane charges for unit No. III was deemed erroneous, and the appellant was entitled to a refund of these charges. Interest Issue: The issue of interest was debated, with the respondent relying on a prohibitory clause against payment of interest. Reference was made to various legal precedents, including a Constitution Bench decision and a Division Bench decision. The power of the Arbitrator to award interest, both pendente lite and on judgment, was upheld based on the Code of Civil Procedure and relevant court decisions. The judgment differed with the learned Judge on the issue of interest, affirming the Arbitrator's decision on pendente lite interest and interest on judgment. Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part, with the decision on overrun charges being affirmed, and the award on interest being upheld. The judgment was modified accordingly, and the appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs.
|
