- (1.) THIS is an application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. , 1940 for setting aside of the award dated 28th September, 1989 passed by the Joint Arbitrators S. N. Ganguly and a. K. Sanyal.
(2.) BY the said award the Joint Arbitrators made an award in favour of the claimant directing the respondent to paya sum of Rs. 3,36,688. 96 p. and, in addition to return, duly discharged, to the claimant the F. D. R for rs. 10. 000/- furnished by the claimant towards earnest money. The item wise breakup of the said award for the said sum of Rs. 3,36,688. 96 p. has also been indicated in the award, item wise break up as indicated in the award is as follows : JUDGEMENT_122_TLCAL0_1991Html1.htm The petitioner has taken several grounds in the petition challenging the said award. The grounds taken on the petition are as follows : i. For that the said Joint Arbitrators erred in holding that the respondent did work outside the scope of the agreement, and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as per claim item no. 3 in total disregard to the contractual stipulation as contained in the rates provided in the agreement. II. For that the said Joint Arbitrators by totally overlooking the fact that the line proposed to be relied was on a existing pipe line and thereby mis-conducted themselves and the proceedings. III. For that the said Joint Arbitrators erred in awarding sums of Rs. 3,775/- and Rs. 10,000/- as claimed under item no. 4 on account of alleged illegal vtermination of contract, and thereby mis-conducted themselves and the proceedings. . IV. For that the said Joint Arbitrators ought to have held that the termination of Contract was according to law and that no claim was suitainable on that account. In any event awarding of rs. 10. 000/- on account of advance as alleged advance for pipes to the suppliers was too remote and not admissible under the law; v. For that the said Joint Arbitrators by awarding Rs. 49. 600/-and Rs. 31,500/- under claim items 6 and 7 are erroneous and not in according with law and thereby mis-conducted themselves and the proceedings.
(3.) AT the time of hearing of this application, the learned Counsel for the petitioner referring to claim item no. 3 has submitted that the award in respect of such claim is outside the scope of the reference. The claim item no. 3 as indicated above is under the heading "loss suffered due to non-payment of work done outside the scope of agreement". The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to claim item no. 4 which is under heading "loss suffered due to illegal termination of contract. ";