Mohd. Fahim Anwar JUDGMENT
Sujoy Paul, J.
1. This appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Arbitration Act') takes exception to the order dated 05.12.2016 passed in MJC Arbitration Case No. 09/2007 whereby the application filed by appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act against the Arbitral award was disallowed by the court below.
2. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts are that a tender was issued by appellant for the work of detailed Design, Engineering, Financing, Procurement, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Raisen-Rahatgarh road of about 100 kms. On 31.12.2001, a Letter of Acceptance(LOA) was issued to the consortium of Tantia-MPL(JV) having conditions of submission of performance bank guarantee within two weeks and signing of agreement within four weeks for issuance of LOA. After submission of performance bank guarantee on 08.03.2002, consortium agreement dated 04.02.2002 was entered into between the parties. The stipulated completion period of work was 18 months as per the Concessionaire Agreement. The extended date of completion on failure of achieving milestone and showing progress of work was 03.02.2004. The agreement was terminated on 24/28.01.2003 on alleged violation of terms of contract and on the allegation of snail progress by the contractor.
3. Indisputably, a civil suit was filed by the respondents at Kolkata in which on 19.05.2003, the parties decided to refer the dispute to arbitration in view of Arbitration Act.
4. In turn, a Three Member Arbitral Tribunal (Tribunal) was constituted. The respondent/contractor filed statement of claim for Rs. 89,67,00,000/-. After completion of pleadings and filing of documents, etc., the Arbitrator passed the award and awarded total amount with interest i.e. Rs. 6,90,34,743/- (upto the date of signing the award).
5. The appellant feeling aggrieved with this award, assailed it before the court below by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The Court below after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order dated 05.12.2016 and dismissed the application. This order is subject matter of challenge in this appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
6. Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the relevant paras of the statement of claim and urged that the contractor prayed for passing an award for Rs. 89,67,00,000/- as per the pleadings in para 51 of the claim. The said para of the claim was relied upon to submit that neither in this para nor in subsequent paras any break up is provided on the strength of which claim of Rs. 89,67,00,000/- was raised. The claim is therefore without any basis and foundation.
7. By taking this Court to the award dated 13.11.2006, it is urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the rival claims of the claimants and respondents were reproduced by the Tribunal in the award. Thereafter, the Tribunal determined certain amount in favour of the claimants. Much emphasis is placed on repeated findings of the Tribunal wherein it is recorded that 'reasoning an........