Arindam Sinha,J. - (1.) The Court : Mr. Bose, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner in this arbitration petition to set aside award. He commences his submissions. He relies on judgment of Supreme Court in 'Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. vs. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)' available at 2019 SCC Online SC 677, to paragraph 15, in which, inter alia, following was said: "15........Given this, we declare that Section 34, as amended, will apply only to Section 34 applications that have been made to the Court on or after 23.10.2015, irrespective of the fact that the arbitration proceedings may have commenced prior to that date."
(2.) To the challenge of his client's, he submits, unamended provisions in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as before 23rd October, 2015, would apply. He then cites 'Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Saw Pipes Ltd.' reported in (2003) 5 SCC 705, to paragraph 31. Relying on this declaration of law he submits, his client's challenge is threefold. The award is not per terms of contract, therefore, in breach of it and the Arbitration Act. It gives no reason for sums awarded with interest thereon. Lastly, the award being unfair and unreasonable, it will shock conscience of Court. The award should be set aside.
(3.) Respondent rendered service on being called upon to do so as found to be lowest bidder (L1). It was a clear term of contract that the bid should include all tax components built into it. On respondent having been issued Letter of Intent (LOI), it commenced providing service and obtained from one of his client's officer, a letter saying service tax component at 8% would be paid extra. Respondent raised bills and obtained payment of this as extra amounts. Subsequently, there was enhancement in rate of service tax and that too was paid till discovery. Initially, sums in excess of 8% of quoted amount were adjusted against following bills. Then his client made recovery of all sums payable on account of service tax. In the meantime, his client initiated proceedings against the officer who had issued the letter.;