Sanjib Banerjee, J. - (1.) AN award rendered in an arbitral reference pertaining to a works contract is assailed in the present proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The primary ground of challenge is that the award does not give any or adequate reasons in support of the various heads under which the respondent-claimant was found to be entitled. The petitioner also claims that crucial matters that were urged before the arbitrator and noticed by the arbitrator in course of recording the submission of the parties were not taken into account in assessing the claim.
(2.) THE contract was for the construction of one or more buildings in Ulubari, Assam. THE same contractor was simultaneously involved in the constructior of another set of buildings at nearby Naltoli. THE petitioner herein was the employer in either case. THE claim carried before the arbitrator comprised several heads ranging from unpaid bills to escalation, extra work, damages, interest and costs. THE value of the claim was in the region of Rs.55 lakh. THE petitioner herein made a substantial counter-claim in excess of Rs.1.50 crore. But it is evident, and is recorded by the arbitrator, that the counter-claim was more by way of a defence than with any realistic expectation of succeeding therein. THE award is broken into several sections. THEre is a brief paragraph in the nature of a preface recording the circumstances in which the reference came to be made. Over the next nine pages from page 3 of the award, the claimant's case in its statement of claim is noticed. THE case run in the counter-statement is recorded between pages 12 and 17 of the award. From page 18 to the top of page 33, the oral and written submission of the parties are collated without any apparent analysis or independent discussion by the arbitrator. From page 33 to 36 of the award the arbitrator has noted the submission on behalf of the employer (the petitioner herein) in course of its rejoinder. THE arbitrator's findings are rendered from the bottom of page 36 to the top of page 40. Pages 40 and 41 cover the counter-claim and its rejection. Pages 42-43 detail the heads of claim indicated in the contractor's statement of claim. THEre are ten lines thereafter expended in discussing which of the heads of claim were accepted by the arbitrator and those which were not. THEre is a paragraph devoted to interest and a further paragraph covering costs. THE award is spread over 44 pages. To begin with, the parties agree that there is an obvious error in the award. The contractor suggests that notwithstanding the award recording a principal amount of Rs.10,62,829/ - having been found to be due to the contractor, the actual principal quantum awarded should be seen to be Rs. 11,64,313/-. The parties agree that there are at least two mistakes in the crucial ten-line paragraph at page 43 of the award which is the basis for allowing the quantum that has been. The parties say that the claim under head No.3A(iv) was rejected and not allowed. Instead, they say, that claim under head No.3A(iii) was allowed even though it is not reflected in the relevant ten lines. The parties further submit that at page 42 of the award, the quantum claimed under head No. 3A(i) has been erroneously printed as Rs. 1,31,386/- and the correct figure is Rs. 1,01,484/- The parties also accept that the claim against head No.3A(ii) has been altogether missed out in the summary of claims appearing at page 42 of the award though the figure in respect of such head of claim (Rs. 1,31,386/-) has been mistakenly attributed to the claim under head No.3A(i) in the summary.
(3.) THERE are, therefore, obvious errors spread over at least two heads of claim both in the summary at page 42 of the award and in the operative part thereof contained in the ten lines at page 43. The petitioner contends that though the arbitrator found in favour of the contractor in respect of the three issues that the arbitrator framed, there is nothing in the award to indicate the basis for the quantum awarded under each head of claim accepted by the arbitrator. The petitioner reasons that even after the arbitrator found that the petitioner was responsible for the delay in the completion in the project, it was incumbent on the arbitrator to justify the quantum awarded to the contractor by way of damages or otherwise. The petitioner complains that there is nothing in the award to support why the arbitrator accepted the entirety of the amounts claimed by the contractor under several heads and why the arbitrator did not deem it necessary to assess whether the entirety or only parts of the amounts claimed ought to be allowed.;