JUDGMENT :

I. P. Mukerji, J.

1.This is an appeal from a judgment and order dated 13^th January, 2020 in an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, made by the appellant, refusing to set aside an arbitral award dated 3^rd November, 2003 made and published by one Bachaspati Goswami, Chartered Engineer and Regime and Marine Consultant.

2. In the said award the learned Arbitrator awarded to the respondent Rs.2,16,68,844/- against claim No.1 for alleged extra work done by them for which bills were raised and against claim No.2 for refund of the security deposit of Rs.22,45,848/- aggregating to Rs.2,38,14,692/- together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 8^th February, 2002 till the date of the award. If the payment was not made within three months from the date of the award further interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the aforesaid sum was payable by the appellant.

3. The claim was ready by a letter dated 19^th October, 2001 by the respondent asking for reference of this dispute to arbitration.

4. The reasons given in the impugned judgment and order for rejecting the Section 34 application and upholding the award are indeed very short. They are as follows:

“Certification in prescribed form was a situation contemplated by the General Conditions. Bills, meriting award, remained unpaid. Award-holder was working out the contract. Disputes arose on award-holder refusing to continue to dredge on not being paid therefore. As such it is apparent that completion of contract, being certified as contemplated, did not happen. The Tribunal has dealt with the question. Enquiry into merits thereof is thus far and need not be any further.

The Tribunal having found completion of work, also awarded on refund of security. It was empowered to and awarded on interest as well. Petitioner was unable to demonstrate before the Tribunal that contract work was incomplete. Hence, the Tribunal’s rejection of its counter-claims.

In view of aforesaid, the petition is found to be without merit and the same is dismissed.”

5. The appellant took a decision to construct a shore based pilot station complex in Sagar island. It involved dredging/excavation of an approach channel and basin and construction of an embankment near the Calcutta Port Trust light house. For this purpose they entered into an agreement with the respondent on 25^th June, 1999. The work had to be completed in 18 months which would end in December, 2000. The total volume of materials to be involved in dredging and excavation was 2,40,000 cubic metres and paid at the rate of Rs.57 per cubic metre. The total amount payable for the work was Rs.2,86,56,200/- out of which Rs.2,79,32,865/- has been paid by the appellant to the respondent contractor. On 13^th August, 2001 the appellant served the respondent with a letter dated 10^th August, 2001 stating that the incomplete work would be entrusted to another contractor at the risk and cost of the respondent. The respondent asserted that the pilot station was in operation before 17^th April, 2001 when the Chairman came to the site to inaugurate it. Hence the work was complete prior to that date and completed within the scheduled time. However, I find in paragraph 5 of their letter dated 27^th August, 2001 written by them to the Chairman of the Port Trust, they admitted that the work could not be completed by 30^th December, 2000 and that the appellant had granted them six months’ extension to complete it.

6. On 3^rd January, 2002 Mr. Bachaspati Goswami, Chartered Engineer and Regime and Marine Consultant was appointed as arbitrator.

7. The following claim was made before the arbitral tribunal.

SCHEDULE OF CLAIM