GOYAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) against the order dated 28. 5. 2002 whereby the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur remanded the matter to the Arbitrator to quantify the amount of claims.
(2.) THE relevant facts in brief are that the respondent-claimant company moved an application before the Competent Authority of the appellant-non claimant to refer the disputes regarding the construction of tunnel in Zindoli Ghati, Alwar District. As per agreement between the parties for the settlement of the dispute, if any, the matter was referred to the Sole Arbitrator who is the managing director of the appellant corporation itself. THE respondent-company filed its claim under seven heads. THE appellant corporation filed its rely and also raised counter claim. The Sole Arbitrator framed issues and passed its award on 20. 10. 2001. As per this award, claims No. 1 and 5 of the respondent company were allowed while rejecting the rest of the claims of the respondent as well as the counter claim of the appellant. Aggrieved by this award the appellant corporation filed an application under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside the award. Learned District Judge having heard learned counsel for the parties came to this conclusion that Sole Arbitrator has not quantified the amount of claims No. 1 & 5, hence the award was remitted to the Arbitrator for a limited purpose to quantify the amount under both the heads and thus objections of the appellant corporation were allowed partly. Learned counsel for the appellant made first submission that preliminary objections raised by the appellant were not considered by the Arbitrator as well as by learned District Judge, hence the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. Three preliminary objections were raised on behalf of the appellant. First objection was that Sh. S. Mukundan was not duly authorised by the board of directors of the respondent-company to present the claim petition, second-company to present the claim petition, second preliminary objection was that each page of the claim petition was not signed by the claimant and the third objection was that there was delay in filing the claim petition. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Arbitrator framed 12 issues and issue No. 1 was with regard to these preliminary objections and the same were decided by the Sole Arbitrator as well as by learned District Judge.
(3.) ON perusal of the impugned order it is evident that preliminary objections were decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and thus the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. Otherwise also, these are technical objections, as even today, the respondent company has nowhere disputed this fact that Sh. S. Mukundan was not authorised on behalf of the respondent and further if each and every page was to be signed by the claimant, the Sole Arbitrator was competent to direct the claimant to sign each and every page of the claim petition and further the claim petition was decided on merits and thus only on account of delay in filing the claim, such application should not be dismissed. Therefore, the first submission made by learned counsel for the appellant does not carry any merit. It was next submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the order of remand is bad in law as any error or mistake in the award can be rectified within a period of 30 days in view of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act. He placed reliance upon Global Company vs. National Fertilizers Ltd. (1), wherein the dispute between the parties was that as interest is payable for what period. It was held that the Court has no such powers to decide and the appellant should have approached to the Arbitrator within 30 days. Now in the instant case, no such question arose before the learned District Judge to interpret the award or to correct any error or mistake in the award. This objection was raised on behalf of the appellant before the learned District Judge that the amount under claim No. 1 & 5 has not been quantified and the learned District Judge only remanded the case to the Sole Arbitrator to quantify the amount and it does not amount to interpretation of the award or correction of any mistake. Second judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is Chahal Engineering & Construction Co. vs. Irrigation Department, Punjab Sirsa (2), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the contract was for a lump sum on turnkey basis but the Arbitrator proceeded on the assumption that as only a part of it had been completed, the lump sum contract had come to an end and had been substituted by an item rate contract. Moreover the work was in progress during the arbitration proceedings before him. The Arbitrator did not quantify the award. He states to have applied the Common Schedule of rates Vo. II P. W. D. Manual. The said Manual did not prescribe any rates for items but the Arbitrator gave his own rates. All these facts constitute errors on the face of the record showing misconduct of proceedings. Award is set aside and new Arbitrator is appointed. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the award and appointed a new Arbitrator. Therefore, the judgment also does not extend any help to the contention made by learned counsel for the appellant. The learned District Judge relying upon one judgment cited on behalf of the appellant itself 1998 (1) R. A. J. (1) page 320 (3), held that the matter can be remanded to quantify the amount under two heads of claim. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that now Sole Arbitrator had already quantified the amount and the objections have already been filed in the Court of learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, therefore, this appeal against the order of remand is liable to be dismissed. ;