Prabir Kumar Majumdar, J. - (1.) This is an appeal from a judgment and order dated 30th May, 1985 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Award Case No.457 of 1984. By the said judgment and order the learned Judge dismissed in part the application of the appellant herein under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside the award dated 15th November, 1984. The impugned award directed payment of a sum of Rs.27, 96,821.46p along with interest and cost. The learned Judge, however, set aside this part of the award relating to interest.
(2.) The appellant Union of India entered into a contract with the respondent on or about 8th April, 1977 and the said contract contained in arbitration clause. The disputes and differences arose between the parties in connection with the said contract and the respondent M/s. Shakambari & Co. made an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, being special Suit No. 72 of 1982, for filing of the arbitration agreement and reference of disputes in terms of the arbitration agreement. On or about 17th December, 1982 an order was made which order was later modified by an order dated 20th April, 1983. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on the said application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the arbitrators entered into the reference and passed the impugned award dated 15th November, 1984. It was contended on behalf of the appellant before the Court of first instance that the award in respect of certain items of claim was beyond the jurisdiction of the arbitrators since such items were "excepted matters" within the meaning of clause 63 of General Conditions of Contract. The appellant submitted before the Court on the first instance that the arbitrators did not take into consideration the General Conditions of Contract and thereby misconducted themselves. It was contended on behalf of the appellant before the Court of the first instance that arbitrators' failure to consider material documents amounted to legal misconduct and on that ground the award was liable to be set aside irrespective of whether it was speaking award or not. The other point taken by the appellant before the Court of first instance was a question relating to interest. The appellant contended before the Court of first instance that arbitrators allowed the interest on item No. 13 although no claim was made for the same. It was submitted by the appellant before the Court of the first instance that the arbitrators have awarded Rs. 6,00,630.51 by way of interest on item Nos. 1, 7, 10, 13, 15, 18, 20 and 21 from the date of the demand of the arbitration by the respondent and it was also urged by the appellant before the Court of the first instance that the claim for interest on item No. 13 was not referred to arbitration at all as, according to the appellant, would appear from the list of claims read with the letter dated 23rd January, 1982 of the General Manager, South Eastern Railway enclosing the list of claims and those claims as contained in the said list were referred to the arbitration for adjudication. There is no claim for interest under item No. 13. Therefore, it is submitted by the appellant that by allowing such interest the arbitrators had acted without jurisdiction and the said award relating to interest was further challenged by the appellant before the Court of the first instance on the ground that the arbitrators by giving a lump sum interest without mentioning the rate also committed an error apparent on the fact of the award.
(3.) The learned trial Judge held against the appellant on the first submission that the arbitrators acted without jurisdiction by taking into consideration the matters which were "excepted matters" within the meaning of the clause 63 of the General Conditions of Contract. On the question relating to interest the learned trial Judge held in favour of the appellant. The learned Judge held that the award for interest could not be upheld on the ground that same was not referred to the arbitration, and was beyond the scope of the reference. Accordingly, the learned Judge set aside this part of the award relating to interest and upheld the rest of the award. It was observed by the learned Judge that excepting those two grounds no other grounds had been pressed in this case. In the circumstances, the learned trial Judge upheld the award excluding the interest for Rs. 6,00,630.51.;