- (1.) The claimant/respondent made a claim of Rs. 23,38,257/-. Initially, the matter was referred to arbitration and the authority of the erstwhile Arbitrator was revoked by this Court under the old Arbitration Act, 1940. This Court thereafter appointed Mr. N. C. Roy Choudhury, a senior Advocate of this Court as Arbitrator. The parties participated in the proceeding. There had been 100 and odd sittings. At the 106th sitting when the arbitration was nearing its completion, Counsel for the petitioner before me took certain technical objections including challenging the authority of the Arbitrator relying on a decision of mine reported in 2003, (4) CHN 16.3 in the case of Union of India v. Pioneer Construction. In Paragraph 11 of the said decision I held that as the letter of acceptance was a conditional one and unless and untill that pre-condition was fulfilled it could not be said that there had been concluded contract. Since there had been no concluded contract, the arbitration clause embodied therein could not be invoked. Citing this decision it was contended that no formal agreement for arbitration was entered into by and between the parties and, as such, the Arbitrator had no authority. The Arbitrator in his award considered such issue and came to a finding that such submission in the facts of this case was not tenable and the ratio decided by me in the case of Union of India (supra) was not applicable. The Arbitrator also rejected the other technical objections raised by the petitioner.
(2.) On merits the Arbitrator published an award only to the extent of Rs. 1,28,000/- on account of principal claim and a sum of Rs. 75,000/- on account of interest in favour of the claimant/respondent. The balance part of the claim was rejected by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator, however, in the concluding paragraph awarded costs for Rs. 1.2 lacs in favour of the claimant/respondent. The observations of the Arbitrator are as follows :- "The only point remaining is the question of cost in the present case. In view of the said contumacious and improper conduct as aforementioned and in the facts and circumstances of the case I think it is just and proper that the respondent should pay the cost assessed for Rs. 1,20,000/- and I award the same in favour of the claimant."
(3.) The claimant/respondent accepted the award although about 908 of their claim stood rejected by the Arbitrator. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of presentation of this application under Sections 30 and 33 of the said Act, 1940.;