S.Ravindra Bhat, J. - (1.) The parties to this proceeding entered into a contract on 14.07.2010 for execution of work of "Detailed Engineering survey, Soil survey, Cadastral survey & Providing services for establishing ROU in ROW of "Paradip-Haldia-Durgapur LPG Pipeline Project" by the respondent (hereafter "the Institute") within 28 months from the date of issuance of letter of acceptance, issued by the appellant (hereafter "IOL"). The present appeal challenges an order of the learned single judge, rejecting IOL's petition, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter "the Act").
(2.) The facts are that disputes arose between the parties, and the Institute filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. On 18.10.2011 in Arb. Pet. 42/2011, this court noted the submissions of the IOC that the Institute had to first apply to the General Manager of IOC in terms of the arbitration clause. The parties agreed the General Manager would consider the application and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The petition was withdrawn in view of this direction; the Institute approached the General Manager of the petitioner and made the following claims: - "(1) Claim of Rs.51,19,898/- for work done plus the service tax; (2) Claim for refund of Rs.4,20,0001/- deposited by IGPL towards security deposit; (3) Claim of Rs.18,22,493 /- towards loss of profit suffered by IGPL; (4) Claim for Rs.8,00,000/- for de-mobilization of equipment, machinery and man force from the work site; and (5) Interest@ 16% per annum on the total sum of Rs.81,62,391/- claimed under 1to 4 above with effect from 01.01.2011."
(3.) The General Manager by order dated 12.03.2012 held that claim Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are not notified claims and are not arbitrable. Claim No. 2 for refund of security deposit and interest thereon was held to be arbitrable under Clause 9.0.1.0 of GCC. Steps were taken for the appointment of an arbitrator from a panel of three persons from whom the Institute was to select an arbitrator. This led to the Institute filing a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act before this court (Arb. Pet. No. 175/2012). This court disposed of the petition with a direction that the petitioner shall forward a panel of three names to the respondent within four weeks. The respondent was on the panel to select a name to be appointed as a sole arbitrator. The Arbitrator so selected would be within his/her right to arbitrate upon claim No.2 and interest, if any, thereon along with the counter claim, if any, of the petitioner. The Tribunal passed an award in favour of the Institute, allowing its claims. IOC's objections to the award under Section 34 were rejected, together with the contention that excluded claims had been considered on merits and were part of the award.;