- (1.) In the present case, the parties went to arbitration after completion of the awarded work. The contractor had five claims against the Municipal Corporation, and by Awards dated 06.08.1992, a total Rs. 66.56 lakhs was awarded together with pendente lite interest of 18% and future interest of 12%. A counter claim amounting to Rs. 35,000/- was also awarded. In the arbitration petition filed by the Municipal Corporation, the Single Judge found the Award to be in order and thus, dismissed the challenge to these claims. The Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned judgment dated 16.12.2005, however, went into each claim and substituted its own figures for claim Nos. 2 and 3 by reducing what was granted by the Arbitrator. Claim No. 4, in its entirety, was rejected by the Division Bench, and it finally scaled down the pendente lite interest from 18% to 12% and future interest from 12% to 8%.
(2.) Ms. Minakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has argued that the Division Bench ought not have substituted its own view for that of the Arbitrator and acted as if it were in appellate Court. She pointed out that substantial reasons were given for the Awards in each of the claims, the Arbitrator having applied his mind and having awarded amounts less than what was claimed. According to her, the award was unexceptionable and should not have been interfered with. Shri Atul Chitale, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation, has argued before us that the Division Bench ultimately construed various clauses of the agreement in order to arrive at the substituted figures and also stated that so far as Claim No.3 was concerned, the Arbitrator could not have awarded more than what was actually claimed, in the view taken by the Arbitrator that only amounts that were claimed within the stipulated time, and not for the extended time, was permissible. According to him, therefore, the Division Bench has given a reasoned judgment within the bounds of challenges to arbitration Awards under the 1940 Act.
(3.) We have heard learned senior counsel appearing for both the parties.;