MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA,J. - (1.) The Award under challenge in this application under Section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) is of a learned Sole Arbitrator who was the former Chief Engineer, PWD and also of the Indo-German Basic Health Project, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal on the date of delivery of the Award which was 30th September, 2010. The petitioner was the respondent in the arbitration proceeding.
(2.) The impugned Award is the culmination of disputes and differences which arose out of a project undertaken by the petitioner, which is a statutory body under the West Bengal Housing Board Act, 1972, for construction and installation of piles, beams, etc. up to the ground floor level of a multi-storeyed building at Kolkata. The respondent herein (claimant in the arbitration) was the successful bidder of a tender floated by the petitioner and a formal Work Order was issued by the petitioner to the respondent on 11th September, 2002. The disputes between the parties related to the laches of both sides in the completion of the projects beyond the agreed date. The respondent filed 22 claims and an amount of Rs.1,35,65,873/- in the arbitration out of which 12 claims were allowed by way of an amount of Rs.72,22,380/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent within three months from the date of the Award in default of which the petitioner would have to pay interest on the unpaid amount at 18% per annum till full payment. Of the 22 claims, counsel for the petitioner has primarily argued on Claim Nos. 5 and 8 as the amounts in these two claims (Rs.6,68,271/- and Rs.27,83,005/- respectively) are substantially higher than the other claims.
(3.) Mr. Subhabrata Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assails the Award on the ground that the Award fails to disclose reasons for the findings arrived at by the learned Arbitrator. It is submitted that by failing to give reasons, the Award offends the fundamental policy of Indian law and is opposed to justice and morality. Counsel further submits that the Award is also patently illegal. Counsel places the relevant facts to impress upon the court that despite two extensions given to the respondent, the contract, which commenced on 4th October, 2002, was completed on 22nd May, 2004. The stipulated date of completion was 3rd October, 2003. Counsel submits that the respondent was wholly accountable for the delay in executing the work and also neglected to comply with the contractual obligations under the agreed terms of the contract. It is also submitted that the respondent failed to procure the construction materials within time which resulted in impeding the progress of the work. Counsel relies on the quantity of the work executed being recorded in a Measurement Book in accordance with which the petitioner prepared the Running Account (R.A.) Bills and payment was accordingly made to the respondent who received the same without objection.;