Judgment

D.P. Wadhwa, J.-IAs 17 to 20 of 1998 are objections filed by M/s. Gautam Construction and Fisheries Ltd. (GC & FL) under Sections 15, 17 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, the ‘Act’) to the award dated September 9, 1997 of the sole Arbitrator, Justice V. Khalid, a retired Judge of this Court. IAs 21 to 24 are the objections similarly filed by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) against the same award.

2. GC & FL in their objections seek directions for modification of the award to correct an error with regard to wrong deduction of Rs. 30,000,00/- twice by the Arbitrator from their claims 1 and 13 in their statement of claim. They have also claimed interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of the award in their favour till payment. AWHO in their objections also seek modification of the award stating that their claim for anticipated liability towards completion of the contract was wrongly rejected by the Arbitrator when some of the amounts claimed were towards “firm liability”. Both parties disputed the objections of each other to the award as aforesaid.

3. Little background will be necessary to understand the objections raised by the parties. There was a contract entered into between them for construction of certain number of dwelling units by GC & FL for AWHO on the land belonging to GC & FL. Contract contained an arbitra­tion clause. Disputes arose between the parties resulting in cancella­tion of contract by the AWHO and issuance of publication of notice for re-tendering of the contract for the balance of the work. Instead of seeking appointment of arbitrator under the terms of the contract, GC & FL filed an application under Section 20 of the Act and also filed an application under Section 41 of the Act seeking interim directions. These proceedings were filed in the Madras High Court. The learned single Judge by order dated September 18, 1995 appointed a retired Judge of the Madras High Court as sole arbitrator and at the same time restrained AWHO from re-tendering the work pending disposal of arbitration proceedings. Arbitration agreement under the contract prescribed a different mode for appointment of arbitrator but that is not relevant now and unnecessary for us to examine that aspect. Ag­grieved by the judgment of the High Court, AWHO sought leave to appeal to this Court which was granted by order dated December 4, 1995 and the appeal itself was also heard and disposed of on the same day. With the consent of the parties, this Court then appointed Justice V. Khalid, a retired Judge of this Court, as the Arbitrator and also authorised him to take any help from any technically qualified person. Liberty was given to the parties to approach the Arbitrator for any interim relief including vacation of the injunction order granted by the High Court regarding re-tendering of the work. It was also directed that the Arbitrator would file the award in this Court only and other courts were interdicted from interfering in the arbitration proceed­ings.

4. After entering in to the reference, the Arbitrator gave an interim award on May 8, 1996 whereby he vacated the order of injunction granted by the High Court in its judgment dated September 18, 1995. This interim award when filed in this Court was made rule of the Court as no party filed any objection to the same. Thereafter, the Arbitrator gave his final award on September 9, 1997 and on notice of filing the same given to the parties, they filed their objections now under consideration.

5. The award is quite elaborate. It takes into account numerous details. Arbitrator framed as many as 10 issues and then went on to examine each of the claims put forward by the parties with reference to the record before him. In the objections filed by AWHO it seeks remission of the award. The objections are though under Section 15, 17 and 33 of the Act. In the course of arguments, it was submitted by Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the AWHO that the award be remitted back t