9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court cannot be said to have committed any error in upsetting the award passed by the arbitrator with regard to Claim 4. We, thus, find that the High Court did not commit any error in upsetting the award of the arbitrator with regard to Claim 4 in the statement of claim. Mr Tandale did not assail the judgment of the High Court with regard to other claims upset by the High Court, namely, Claims 8 and 11. With regard to Claim 6, the High Court has already directed the respondents to calculate the amount under this head at the time of settling the final bill and also directed the respondents to pay interest @ 12% p.a on the due amount, if not paid. Obviously, in view of the directions given by the High Court in para 26 of its judgment, the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court by filing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 1996 Act ). After hearing the parties, the Chief Justice allowed the application made by the contractor under Section 11 of the 1996 Act and appointed Justice Shri T.N.C Rangarajan, retired Judge of the High Court, as an arbitrator. 4. The sole arbitrator entered upon the reference. The contractor submitted his statement of claim. The claim of the contractor was under diverse heads; the principal claim being Claim 4 for a sum of ₹ 1,89,99,999 (Rupees one crore eighty-nine lakhs ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine only) as additional remuneration relating to cutting the earth and sectioning to profile. The claim was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t mainly with regard to Claim 4. He extensively referred to the reasons given by the arbitrator in awarding rate of ₹ 210 per cubic metre for the work relating to cutting the earth and sectioning to profile . Mr Tandale submitted that the arbitrator took into consideration the relevant aspects in awarding higher rate for that work than the rate agreed to between the parties under the contract. Mr Tandale further submitted that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the well-reasoned award passed by the arbitrator. 9. Mr Harish Chandra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, justified the judgment of the High Court. 10. In Schedule A appended to the contract, rates of the items not covered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd award the contractor a higher rate for the work for which rate was already fixed in the contract. The arbitrator having exceeded his authority and power, the High Court cannot be said to have committed any error in upsetting the award passed by the arbitrator with regard to Claim 4. 12. We, thus, find that the High Court did not commit any error in upsetting the award of the arbitrator with regard to Claim 4 in the statement of claim. 13. Mr Tandale did not assail the judgment of the High Court with regard to other claims upset by the High Court, namely, Claims 8 and 11. With regard to Claim 6, the High Court has already directed the respondents to calculate the amount under this head at the time of settling the final bill and also direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
