P.K.Majumdar, J. - (1.) - The petitioner has challenged the award dated 30th January, 1988 passed by Joint Arbitrators, K.K Mishra and S.P, Roy Chowdhury on several grounds mentioned in the petition.
(2.) BY a letter of intent dated 15th March, 1984, the petitioner awarded contract to the respondent for earth work, concreting, masonary and other allied work at various elevation in the-main power house for Farakka Super Thermal Project of S.T.P.C. at Farakka. A formal agreement to that effect was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent on 12th May, 1984. The said agreement contains an arbitration clause, Disputes and differences arose between the parties with regard to settlement of the final bill of respondent no. 1 and accordingly the said disputes or differences were referred to arbitration before the Joint Arbitrators, K. K. Misra, the then General Manager (Projects) of the Steel Authority of India at Bokaro Steel Plant, nominated by the petitioner and D.P. Roy Chowdhury, Retired Commissioner of the West Bengal Housing Board, nominated by the respondent no. 1, The Joint Arbitrators entered upon the reference on 18th October, 1986. The Joint Arbitrators made and published the said award dated 30th January, 1988. The operative portion of the said award is as follows: "We, Sri D.P. Roychowdhury and Sri K.K. Mishra, on perusal of all pleadings filed by the parties and the evidence adduced by them and on careful bearing of the arguments offered by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties, do hereby make and publish our following Award in full and final settlement of all the disputes referred to us as claims of the claimant and the counter claims of the Respondent as under: (1) We Award and direct that the Respondent M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. shall pay to the claimant M/s. Banerjee and Banerjee, a sum of Rs. 14,43,000.00 (Rupees Fourteen lakhs forty three thousand) only in full and final settlement of their claims, after adjustment/set off the counter claims agitated by the Respondent. (2) We further Award that the Respondent M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. shall return to the claimant, M/s. Banerjee and Banerjee the following Bank Guarantees duly endorsed in favour of the claimant: JUDGEMENT_10_CALLT2_1990Html1.htm (3) We further confirm the implementation of interim award given by us on 24.6.87 for return of Bank Guarantee No. LG/013/8/84 dated 15.5.86 for Rs. 1.5 lacs of Indian Overseas Bank by the Respondent M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. to the claimant, M/s. Banerjee and Banerjee. (4) We further Award that M/s. Banerjee and Banerjee shall have no claim on the machinery, equipments and materials including their temporary structures left at the site of the works of the respondent at Farakka as stood on the date of reference and the ownership of the same shall vest on the Respondent. (5) We further Award that the Respondent, M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. shall pay an interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 14,43,000.00 (Rupees Fourteen lakhs forty three. thousand) only at the rate of 12 % (Twelve percent) per annum with effect from 24.7.85 till the date of payment thereof or decree whichever is earlier. (6) We further Award that the parties shall bear their respective costs as already borne by them. This Award is declared in full and foal settlement of all the disputes raised before us. In witness whereof we, the Joint Arbitrators have set our hands to this Award on this day of 30th January, 1988. Sd/- K.K. Mishra Sd/- D.P. Roy Chowdhury 30.1.88 30.1.88 (K.K.Mishra) (D.P.Roy Chowdhury)
(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the said award on several grounds. According to the petitioner, the said award is vitiated by mistake in that the said Joint Arbitrators erred and inadvertently omitted to deduct the admitted recoverable amount from the bill amounts, thus awarding a shocking over payment. It is also challenged by the petitioner that the said Joint Arbitrators by mistake failed to deduct the said recoveries which are admittedly recoverable by the petitioner and thus the said Joint Arbitrators committed a gross mistake in computation of the amount of the award. THE petitioner has also challenged the award by contending that the said Joint Arbitrators have misconducted themselves by committing a gross mistake by filing to deduct the sum which is admittedly deductible. THE said impugned award has also been challenged on the ground that the said Joint Arbitrators misconducted themselves and committed an error of law by failing to give reasons for the award made in favour of respondent no. 1 and also the said Joint Arbitrators failed to express their true intention in the award as a result of gross mistake. THE petitioner has also challenged the award in respect of interest as awarded by the said Joint Arbitrators by contending that the arbitrators are not competent to award any pendente lite interest or any interest at all inasmuch as no notice pursuant to the Interest Act, 1978 was served upon the petitioner by respondent no. 1.;