- (1.) The petitioner challenges four several heads of claim that have been entertained and allowed in the impugned arbitral award. The petitioner says that the sums awarded on account of overrun charges, crane-hire charges and interest are in derogation of the agreement between the parties. The petitioner assails the reduction in the quantum of deduction allowed by the arbitral tribunal on account of the respondent -claimant failing to complete the painting work.
(2.) The petitioner obtained an order for setting up some plant or boiler units and was desirous of engaging a sub-contractor for discharging a part of the work. Pursuant to a notice inviting tender issued by the petitioner, the respondent offered to erect, test and commission two 120 MW boilers (Unit II and Unit III) on behalf of the petitioner. The value of the contract awarded in favour of the respondent was Rs.6,99,40,000/-. Following disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, either party nominated its arbitrator and the two arbitrators chose the third. The arbitral tribunal awarded Rs.69.22 lakh on various heads and a sum of Rs.25.39 lakh on account of interest.
(3.) In the present proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner says that the arbitral tribunal which derived its authority under the agreement between the parties could not have overridden the specific clauses in the contract to give relief to the respondent. The petitioner says that the arbitral tribunal had no power to consider the claims on account of overrun charges, crane-hire expenses and interest. On the fourth count of challenge, the petitioner suggests that the arbitral tribunal misdirected itself and disallowed the deduction made by the petitioner on irrelevant and extraneous considerations. In substance, it is the petitioner's case that the arbitral tribunal failed to decide the reference in accordance with the terms of the contract, in respect of the matters which have been challenged at the hearing. The matter was heard at length on February 17, 2010. Upon the petitioner's submission being concluded, substantial time was wasted by the respondent on account of the obvious unpreparedness. The matter was adjourned and costs reserved. Even at the second call in a continuing part-heard matter, the respondent has not been represented at the hearing on February 18, 2010.;