MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA,J. - (1.) The present challenge is to an Award dated 28th February, 2007 of a learned Sole Arbitrator who was the Deputy Chief Materials Manager, Sales, Eastern Railway as on the date of delivery of the Award. The petitioner Union of India/Eastern Railways was the respondent in the arbitration proceedings. The issue before the Arbitrator was supply of chemical compounds within a certain time frame by the respondent herein (claimant before the Arbitrator) to Eastern Railways against three tranches of supplies contained in 25, 31 and 32 "Letters of Order" (term used by the learned Arbitrator in the Award) from November, 1987 to October 1989. By the impugned Award, the respondent herein was awarded three separate amounts payable by the Railways to the respondent/supplier together with interest for the period during which the respondent's money was blocked with the Railways. The counter-claim of the Railways did not find favour with the learned Arbitrator.
(2.) Ms. Aparna Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner Eastern Railways grounds her challenge to the Award primarily on facts. According to counsel, the respondent was selected as the successful bidder in the tender inviting quotations from various suppliers for supply of chemical compounds. Although Letters of Orders were issued by the petitioner to the respondent for the period 1987 to 1989 in respect of the tenders, according to counsel, they were merely acceptance letters and were not purchase orders for supply of materials. Counsel submits that this would be evident from the fact that the respondent did not deposit the security deposit for the issue of formal purchase orders. Counsel relies on several paragraphs of the Indian Railway Standard Conditions of Contract (IRS Conditions of Contract) which were part and parcel of the tenders and on paragraphs 102 and 104 in particular, which define the terms "acceptance" and "contract" respectively and that a formal agreement must be accepted and acted upon by the parties. Paragraphs 500 and 501 provide for security deposit after receipt of a Letter of Order. Counsel also relies on Clauses 629, 713 and 714 of the Indian Railway Code which, inter alia, provide for a specific procedure for purchase of materials by the railway authorities and also on paragraph 1301 of the IRS Conditions of Contract for the requirement of inspection of the material to be supplied before they are actually delivered to the Railways. Counsel submits that the respondent sent the chemical compounds to the petitioner without any of the aforesaid conditions being followed and without inspection being taken of the materials. Counsel submits that most of these chemical compounds were rejected by the Railways.
(3.) The second point urged by counsel is that the claims of the respondent were barred by limitation. It is submitted that in deciding the issue of limitation in favour of the respondent the Arbitrator did not take into account that the claims filed in the arbitration proceedings should have been filed within the statutory period of limitation as the issue of non- payment of bills was for the period between 1987-1989. Counsel relies on M/s Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Vs. M/s Chowgule Brothers reported in AIR 2010 SC 3543 for the proposition that an Arbitrator cannot make an Award against the specific terms and conditions of the contract between the parties and on several decisions on the point of limitation including Commissioner, M.P. Housing Board Vs. M/s Mohanlal and Company reported in 2016(14) SCC 199, M/s Consolidated Engineering Vs. The Principal Secretary reported in (2008)7 SCC 169. On the point of pre-reference and pendente lite interest counsel relies on M/s Sree Kamtachi Amman Constructions Vs. Divisional Railway Manager reported in AIR 2010 SC 3337.;