SHOBHA DIKSHIT, J. - (1.) THOSE are two first appeals from order under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act against the order dated 4-9-1992 passed by Second Additional Judge Small Causes Court Civil Judge, Lucknow, in R.S. No.202 of 1991 and Misc. case No.79C of 1991 by which learned Judge has rejected dismissed the objections preferred by the appellant U.P. State Electricity Board against the Award dated 26-3-1991 given by the Arbitrators and filed before the aforesaid Court on 8-5-1991 as also made the award rule of the Court. As the matter involved in both these appeals is common, these appeals are decided by a common judgment.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondents/claimants are a private limited company said to be specialising in design, manufacture, supply and erection of all types of gates, hoists and cranes for dams barrage and hydro electric power projects and like requiring advance technology, expertise, quality control and high class workmanship. In response to a notice inviting tenders issued by the appellants U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.S.E.B.) Respondents M/s. Om Metals and Minerals Pvt. Limited submitted the tender for the same on 4-4-1983 which was duly accepted by U.P.S.E.B. and a formal agreement was executed between the parties on 31-12-1983. THE letter of intent according to both the parties was issued on 5-10-1983 prior to formal execution of the aforesaid agreement. The said agreement stipulated only six months period for completion of the work with effect from 19-10-1983 as mentioned in the letter of intent itself. According to the appellant, the work as agreed between the parties could not be completed within the stipulated time and could only be completed in July, 1985. It took 20 months and 21 days to complete the work as against the stipulated period of six months. After the aforesaid completion of the work, since disputes arose between the parties, hence the respondents/ claimants invoked the arbitration clause and set up 11 claims in all. Since the present controversy is confined to claim No.1 only, hence the same is reproduced hereinbelow : Claim No.1 Extra expenditure on overheads incurred due to prolongation of contract and loss of profits. Total amount of claim Rs. 33,97,996-23 P.
(3.) REST of the claims from claim Nos. 2 to 11 are for approximately Rs. 16 lacs only.;