- (1.) The Court: This is an application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 challenging the validity of the award dated 25th March 1996.
(2.) I have perused the award and I find the award is non-speaking award giving a financial benefit for a sum of Rs. 77,00,000/- in favour of the claimant/respondent herein together with interest pendent light at the rate of 6% per annum on the said awarded amount from the date of entering into reference till the date of making the award and cost assessed at Rs. 50,000/-. The award also speaks about interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the award until payment is made by the respondent/petitioner herein to the claimant/respondent herein or the date of the decree whichever is earlier. In addition thereto nil award is given in favour of the respondent/petitioner herein.
(3.) By challenging the award Mr. Gopal Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr. Ajay Dutta, learned Advocate raised various points which are specified hereunder: (a) The Arbitrator has acted without jurisdiction; (b) The subsequent claim as added by the Arbitrator is not arising out of an existing dispute (c) Lump sum non-speaking award given by the Arbitrator when question of jurisdiction exists, therefore such award has to be set aside; (d) The Arbitrator misconducted the proceeding; (e) Changing of rates of work as prescribed by the Arbitrator is not permissible; (f) Principle of natural justice has been violated by the Arbitrator; (g) No communication has been made by the Arbitrator by serving copy of the award alongwith the notice which is an example of misconduct; (h) There is a clear case of non-application of mind; (i) Claim is barred by law of limitation.;