- (1.) V. P. Goel, J. This first appeal from order under Section 39 (vii) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order/judgment dated 11-2-1993 passed by Civil Judge, Dehradun, in Misc. Case No. 150 of 1990, refusing to set aside award dated 6-4-1990.
(2.) THE short facts concerning the arbitration award in question may be stated as follows:- An agreement dated 25-1-1974 was entered between M/s. Searsole Chemicals Limited, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as the Claimant) and U. P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) for supply of electricity by the latter to the former. THE agreement was for continuous supply during 24 hours of each day throughout the whole period of the agree ment. To this condition, there was a proviso that the Board would not be responsible for damages or otherwise on account of interruptions of supply of electricity in some situations. THEse situations can be briefly categorised as: (i) accidental interruptions, (ii) on account of order or direction of the State Government, and (iii) causes beyond the control of the supplier. To be further brief, for the interruptions on account of vis-major, not forced-major, the board would not be responsible for damages. During the continuance of the aforesaid agreement, a dispute arose between the claimant and the Board on two counts. The first was in regard to the liability of the claimant on account of wrong billing, over-charging, levy of unjustifiable penalties and the second was the amount payable to the claimant by the Board on account of heavy damages suffered by the claimant due to frequent interruptions and inadequate and faulty supply of electricity as well as non-supply of electricity to the claimant's plant at its factory Kunanwala. The claimant asked the Board to refer the dispute for arbitration as provided in the agreement. The Board did not accede to its request. Consequently, the claimant filed application under Section 20 of the Act. It was registered as Suit No. 353 of 1983. The court allowed it and ordered the agreement to be filed. In compliance to this order the claimant appointed one Sri S. D. Mohan as Arbitrator and the Board appointed Sri Laxmi Behari as Arbitrator. Sri Laxmi Behari is a member of Higher Judicial Service and was working as Professor of Law in Lal Bahadur Shastri Administrative Academy at Mussoorie. Both the Arbitrators appointed Sri J. C. Gupta, District Judge, Dehradun as Umpire in the event of difference of opinion between them. The claimant filed claim statement before the Arbitrators claiming a sum of Rs. 1,87,751. 98 p. to be refunded on account of excessive charges and a sum of Rs. 49,52,552 as damages on account of illegal interruptions of supply of electricity. The Board filed written statement.
(3.) THE Arbitrators framed as many as eight issues on. the pleas urged by the claimant as well as the Board before them. THE Arbitrators gave the Award on 6-4-1990 which is supported by reasons. By this Award the Arbitra tors granted refund of Rs. 1,74,338. 98 p. to the claimant. THE Arbitrators further granted a sum of Rs, 24,00,000 for the loss suffered by the claimant on account of interruptions in power supply. THE Arbitrators have also awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 12-11- 1986 to the date of the Award and further interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the Award till the date of the payment. Against Award dated 6-4-1990, the Board filed objections before the Civil Judge, Dehradun. It was registered as Misc. Case No. 150 of 1990. Before the Civil Judge, Board took following grounds to challenge the validity of the award:- (i) THE Arbitrators had no authority to award interest under Section 29 of the Arbitration Act. (ii) Though there was guarantee of supply of electricity of the 24 hours of day but there was a proviso to it under which, in some circum stances, supply could be interrupted without liability of paying damages. THE Arbitrators did not consider the proviso. (iii) THE claim petition was vague. (iv) THE claim petition was not verified according to law, and (v) Interference fawn by the Arbitrators for the evidence was not proper; the Arbitrators did not give the detailed reasons and did not apply their mind fully to the facts and circumstances.;