CHIEF ENGINEER (PWD) (NATIONAL HIGHWAYS) GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA Vs. BSC - C&C JV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Article 227 is a second round of litigation that is before this Court between the same parties, though in the present proceedings the erstwhile respondent in the earlier round (CRP No. 2 of 2022) is now the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved with the impugned order dtd. 14/2/2022 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted for adjudication of disputes in relation to Agreement dtd. 21/2/2011 for the 2-laning Project for Nongstoin-Shillong Sec. of NH-44 under the Special Accelerated Road Development Programme (SARDP-NE) of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.

(2.) The brief facts are that the Arbitral Tribunal vide an interim award dtd. 27/7/2021 was pleased to award an amount of Rs.75.00 Crores to the respondent by partly allowing an application of the respondent under Sec. 31(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') which was made, seeking an interim award in respect of Claim No. 1 in the Arbitral proceedings. An application under Sec. 33 of the Act was then filed by the respondents before the Arbitral Tribunal seeking certain modifications in the award which however, came to be rejected by an order dtd. 21/12/2021. By order dtd. 14/2/2022 the Arbitral Tribunal then framed issues for its determination in the said Arbitration proceedings and the first issue framed was with regard to the amounts claimed by the respondents under Claim No. 1.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner centres around the contention that the Arbitral Tribunal patently lacks inherent jurisdiction to reconsider Claim No. 1, inasmuch as, the same had already been considered and an award had been passed thereon, dtd. 27/7/2021. The Arbitral Tribunal by a subsequent order dtd. 21/12/2021 passed under a Sec. 33 application, had also rejected prayers for modification of the award in respect of Claim No. 1 which the petitioner asserts had finally decided the Claim No. 1, but by framing issue No. 1 on Claim No.1, vide the impugned order, the Arbitral Tribunal had conferred authority on itself to award further amounts on a claim which it had already decided. The impugned order is assailed on the grounds that the same had been passed without jurisdiction, against the provisions of the Arbitration Act and in violation of the doctrine of functus officio and res-judicata.