- (1.) THIS application has been made on behalf of the Union of India praying that the award passed by the arbitrator dated 20/07/1992 along with the corrigendum dated 4/08/1992 being Annexure B to the petition be set aside and for other consequential reliefs and orders.
(2.) BY an order dated 25/03/1988, this Court appointed Mr. A. C. Moitra, Senior Advocate, as the sole arbitrator in this case. M/s. Jain and Associates had made a claim on account of various items making a total claim of Rs. 25,52,777.00. The respondent, Union of India, made various counterclaims on different accounts making a total counter-claim of Rs. 24,59,404.00. The said arbitrator made an award in favour of the Jain Associates on account of their claims to the extent of Rs. 8,30,463.00. He also allowed the counter-claim of the Union of India to the extent of Rs. 72,670.00. The net award amount after deducting the counter-claims as allowed from the claims as allowed by the said arbitrator was Rs. 7,57,813.00. The said award was made on 18/09/1991 and hereinafter referred to as the said first award. After the said first award was made, an application was made on behalf of the Union of India for setting aside the said first award and the said application for setting aside the said first award was disposed of by a judgment delivered by Justice Mrs. Ruma Pal dated 23/03/1992 made in award case No. 544 of 1991. It was held by the learned Judge, inter alia, that arbitrator had patently failed to consider counter-claims raised by the petitioner before Sri Sarvesh Chandra who was the previous arbitrator. It was also held that the arbitrator had completely overlooked the second set of counter-claims of the petitioner. The learned Judge also held that it was not clear whether the arbitrator had addressed his mind to the fact that Rupees 3,00,000/- included the claim arising out of rescission of the contract. It was also held that in granting the respondent an award of Rs. 1,50,000.00, the arbitrator should have taken into account how much of the claimant's claim under that head related to damages arising out of the terminations of the contract and how much to the damages arising during the currency of the contract. The learned Judge also held that there was some discrepancy in the costs awarded by the arbitrator. The learned Judge held that the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct. As the learned Judge held that the misconduct was a judicial misconduct or technical misconduct and as there was no allegation of bias or dishonestely or ill will against the arbitrator, the learned Judge set aside the said first award and directed the arbitrator to reconsider the claims and counter-claims of the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. The operative portion of the said judgment and order was as follows : "Accordingly I set aside the award dated 18/09/1991. The arbitrator is directed to determine the claims and counterclaims within a period of four months from date. In the facts of the case, there will be no order as to costs."
(3.) PURSUANT to the said judgment and order, the learned arbitrator held further sittings of the parties and submissions were made the rein on behalf of the parties with regard to the respective claims and counterclaims. After hearing before the arbitrator was over, the arbitrator made his second award being the award dated 20/07/1992 and it appears that the arbitrator published the said award to the parties and also forwarded the same to the Registrar, Original Side, of this Court for filing.;