Tarun Chatterjee, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THIS is an appeal from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing an appeal which was filed against the judgment of a learned Judge refusing to accept the objection filed by the appellant under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The brief facts of this appeal are as follow: BOC Ltd. being the appellant herein and one Nippon Sansa K.K. (NSKK) entered into an agreement in order to facilitate the respondent to import components for setting up a 25 tons per day Oxygen plant at Ghatsila, Bihar (now in the State of Jharkhand). In the month of April/May 1990 the appellant and the respondent entered into a contract for erection, installation and commission of the aforesaid plant at Ghatsila, Jharkhand. On 5th June 1990 a tripartite meeting between the representatives of the appellant and the respondent and NSKK were held where the letter of intent was signed and purchase orders were issued by the respondent in favour of the appellant. The respondent awarded a turnkey contract on 6th June, 1990 to the appellant for manufacture, supply, erection and commission of the said plant. Vide letter dated 18th December 1990, the respondent had agreed to pay interest on margin money and reimburse the same to the appellant. The appellant thereafter on 31st March 1992 raised final invoices and subsequently on 13th April 1992 the respondent raised claims and sought refund from the appellant. By a letter dated 9th March 1993 the appellant informed the respondent indicating therein the interest payable by them to the respondent. Finally, when the prior invoice and letter were not responded to, on 13th September 1993 the respondent again raised claims and sought refund from the appellant. When the refund was not made by the appellant, the respondent made an application under Sections 8 and 33 of the Act for the appointment of an arbitrator on 24th November 1995 in the High Court at Calcutta. In the meantime, on 21st September 1995 the High Court directed the appellant to release the spares to the respondent on payment of Rs. 10,19,000/- by them. A lawyer was thereafter appointed as Arbitrator by consent of the parties and the said arbitrator subsequently was replaced on 12th February, 1996 by Late Arbitrator Shri P.K. Roy. On 29th July 2000, Late Shri Roy had passed his award in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 24,92,165/- with an interest of 12 per cent on the amount. However, the counter claim of the appellant was rejected.
(3.) ON 30th October, 2000, the appellant filed an application for setting aside the award passed by the arbitrator under Section 30 of the Act before the High Court at Calcutta. In the said application, the appellant raised objection to the effect that the award in question suffered errors apparent on the face of it. It was alleged that the arbitrator erred in awarding the claim of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 17,95,710/- relating to claim No. 9 although the learned arbitrator held issue No. 4 in favour of the appellant. It was also alleged that since the appellant had not realised any sum in excess of Rs. 50 lacs against indigenous supply, the award of the learned arbitrator to the effect that the respondent was entitled to receive back from the appellant, the said sum of Rs. 17,95,710/-, was not only erroneous on the face of the award but also contradictory and inconsistent with the findings of the arbitrator against issue No. 4. It was further alleged by the appellant under Section 30 of the Act that the learned arbitrator committed error apparent on the face of the award and had acted in excess of his jurisdiction by awarding the aforesaid sum of Rs. 17,95,710/- in favour of the respondent as the award was contrary to the findings made by the learned arbitrator himself and therefore was liable to be set aside. We are not dealing with the other objections taken by the appellant in its objection under Section 30 of the Act as noted herein after. A learned Judge of the High Court by a detailed judgment had rejected the objection filed under Section 30 of the Act and had refused to set aside the award passed by the arbitrator on the ground that on the materials on record, the award was not liable to be set aside on such grounds. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which was also dismissed against which the present Special Leave Petition was filed in respect of which leave has been granted. We have heard Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. We have also considered the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator Late Mr. P.K. Roy and the objection raised against such award under Section 30 of the Act and also the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court in detail.;