The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the court to properly address the factual and legal controversy involved in a case and to provide reasoned findings, especially when deciding an appeal.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed against the final judgments and orders dated 13.09.2013 in Arbitration Appeal No.9 of 2008 and dated 04.09.2008 in Review Petition No.1 of 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby the Arbitration Appeal and the Review Petition were respectively dismissed.

3. Brief facts need mention to appreciate the controversy involved in these appeals.

4. The respondent-a Government agency at Pune invited tenders for construction of "sports complex” at Pune. The appellant-Company was one of the tenderers whose tender was accepted and accordingly the appellant-Company was awarded contract for the said work.

5. According to the appellant, they completed the work in terms of the Agreement dated 26.05.2003 and submitted the bills for the work done but the amount claimed in the bills was not paid by the respondent. This led to rising of the disputes between the appellant and the respondent regarding the non-payment of some bills of the appellant.

6. Since the Agreement contained an arbitration clause for resolving all kinds of disputes arising between the parties in relation to the agreement and hence the appellant served the notices to the respondent and called upon them to appoint the Arbitral Tribunal as provided in clause 3.8 of the Agreement and refer the disputes regarding non-payment of their bills to the Tribunal for its adjudication. The respondent, despite demand made by the appellant, failed to constitute the Arbitral Tribunal and, therefore, the appellant was constrained to file an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the High Court praying therein for appointment of Arbitral Tribunal for deciding the disputes which had arisen between the parties.

7. By order dated 12.08.2005, the High Court allowed the appellant’s application and appointed Arbitral Tribunal as per Clause 3.8 of the Agreement for deciding the disputes which had arisen between the parties. The Tribunal then embarked upon the reference and on 03.11.2006 passed an award in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for a total sum of Rs.25,64,490/-with interest payable at the rate of 18% p.a. This was followed by one corrigendum issued by the Tribunal in relation to the award to correct some arithmetical errors, which had crept in the award.

8. Felt aggrieved, the respondent challenged the award before the District Judge, Pune by filing objections under Section 34 of the Act being Civil Misc. Application No 36 of 2007. The District Judge, by order dated 16.11.2007, allowed the respondent's application in part and modified the award by reducing the awarded sum from Rs.25,64,490/-to Rs.7,15,544/- and in so modifying also gave some directions.

9. Felt aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal under Section 37 of the Act before the High Court. By impugned order, the learned single Judge dismissed the appeal giving rise to first filing of the review petition by the appellant and consequent upon the dismissal of review, it gave rise to the filing of these appeals by way of special leave by the appellant(claimant) against the main order and review order.

10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent though served.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeals, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits.

12. The impugned order reads as under:

“1. The award has been passed on 3rd November, 2006 in favour of the appellant for Rs.25.64 lacs. The appeal under Section 36 has been partly allowed on 16th November, 2007. Only the award for the amount of Rs.11.90 lacs under bill No. 1 has been set aside and the respondent herein has been directed to pay the appellant Rs.7.14 lacs instead constituting 75% of that amount. The amount