- (1.) LEAVE granted. Heard.
(2.) THE appellant made several claims against the respondent and they were referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator made an award dated 12.8.1996 and granted the following amounts: JUDGEMENT_2312_ILR(MP)_2011s1.jpg The respondent challenged the said award under Section 30 and 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940. The Civil Court, by judgment dated 10.4.2000, rejected the objections and made the award, a rule of the Court. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal in part by judgment dated 28.2.2007. It set aside the award in regard to claims (a), (b), (c), (e), (g) and (i) on the ground that the arbitrator had travelled beyond the express terms of the contract and granted claims which were expressly barred by the provisions of the agreement. It, however, upheld the award in regard to claims (f) and (h). The said judgment of the High Court is challenged in these appeals by special leave.
(3.) THE High Court has 'interfered with the award in regard to items (a), (b) & (c) on the assumption that the same were coatrary to Clause 3.2.0 which reads thus:- "3.2.0. If there be any dislocation in the issue of cement beyond the control of Western Coal Fields Limited, the Contractor/ Agency shall not have any claim whatsoever for the same, and in such an eventuality, extension of time of completion only to a suitable extent will be considered.'" The High Court, relied upon the decision of this Court in Ramnath international Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2007) 2SCC 453, wherein the Court held that where the contract provided that if in cases of delays attributable to employer, the contractor will be entitled for only extenision of time and if the contractor had sought and obtained extension of time, he would not be entitled to claim any compensation on the ground of such delay.;