The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scope of the reference in arbitration was not restricted to overrun amount of Rs. 2 crores, and the court found no reason to interfere with the award of the Learned Umpire.

ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.

1. GMB Ceramics Ltd. (in short ‘GMB’), the appellant in APO 34 of 2016 entered into a Consultancy Agreement dated 29 November, 1986 with Neycer (India) Ltd. (in short ‘Neycer’) for setting up a factory for manufacture of vitreous sanitary ware products. The said agreement was converted into a Collaboration Agreement by an addendum dated 26 June, 1987. Disputes and differences arose between the parties in relation to the said agreement. The agreement contained an arbitration clause for resolution of disputes between the parties. The disputes were referred to Joint Arbitrators nominated by each of the parties. In view of disagreement between the Joint Arbitrators, the matter was referred to the Umpire. Learned Umpire published an award dated 23 June, 1999 for Rs. 1169.63 lacs along with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum in favour of GMB. Neycer filed an application under Secs. 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 being GA No. 4026 of 2000 for setting aside the said award of the Learned Umpire. The said application was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a judgment and order dated 14 October, 2015. The learned Judge in effect held that the claim that GMB referred to arbitration was for a sum of Rs. 2 crores and any award in excess of that sum cannot be sustained.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, GMB has preferred an appeal being APO No. 34 of 2016. Neycer has also preferred an appeal being APOT 42 of 2016 contending that the Award should have been set aside in its entirety. Both the appeals are taken up for hearing and disposal together.

Contention of GMB:-

2. Appearing for GMB, Mr. Ranjan Deb, learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the Collaboration Agreement between the parties provided, inter alia, as follows:-

(i) Neycer was to make available to GMB technology, know how expertise including manufacturing process. Engineering data, consumption norms, fire cycles utility requirements and all information necessary for setting up a manufacturing unit for production of vitreous sanitary wares with installed capacity of 7000 tonnes per annum and manufacturing target of 600 tonnes per annum.

(ii) Neycer would provide its marketing network and sales infrastructure to GMB.

(iii) GMB would have the right to manufacture and sell products using the name of Neycer.

(iv) Neycer would train unskilled labour employed by GMB and would help in selection and training of personnel, technicians and supervisory staff.

(v) Neycer was to set up the manufacturing unit and business market of GMB’s products.

(vi) Neycer would jointly set up the factory and assist GMB to obtain guaranteed optimum production in terms of both quality and quantity.

3. Mr. Deb submitted that Neycer failed, neglected and/or refused to perform its obligations under the said Collaboration Agreement. As a result, GMB suffered substantial loss and damage. According to Mr. Deb, in view of the breaches committed by Neycer, the said agreement stood terminated.

4. In September 1989, Neycer invoked the arbitration clause contained in the said agreement and nominated its arbitrator. In October 1989, GMB nominated its Arbitrator. In so far the claim of GMB was concerned, the Joint Arbitrators were in disagreement and consequently they referred the disputes and differences to the Umpire. The Umpire passed an award in favour of GMB as indicated above.

5. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the application filed by Neycer, set aside the portion of the award in excess of Rs. 2 crores. Mr. Deb submitted that there was no specific reference of disputes to the Arbitrators. The learned umpire culled out the disputes and differences between the parties from the correspondence exchanged between the parties contemporaneously. On a meaningful reading of such correspondence it would be clea