Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.— (ORAL):—

1. A contract was awarded by the appellant to the respondent/contractor for construction of the Allahabad by-pass project in U.P. vide agreement dated 02.06.2004. The project stands completed. However, certain disputes arose inter se the parties qua different aspects of the contract and in view of the arbitration clause, the same were referred to arbitration. We may note that the appellant has a Dispute Resolution Board (DRB) consisting of technical experts in the field, to which matters are first referred to. Since the respondent was not satisfied with the opinion of the DRB, in terms of the agreement, the respondent could and, therefore, did invoke the arbitration.

2. The disputes in the present case culminated in a reference to arbitration of three technical persons who have made the award dated 30.03.2010. The award is unanimous on certain aspects while, on other aspects, there is a dissenting view of one of the arbitrators. The appellant being aggrieved by both the unanimous view and the majority view preferred objections under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), which have been rejected by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order dated 30.11.2011. We may notice that there are two sets of objections registered as O.M.P. Nos. 455/2010 and 456/2010 to two arbitral awards both dated 30.03.2010, which have been dealt with by this common order relating to the same contract but arising out of two different references to the same arbitral tribunal. Reference No.1 related to Dispute Nos.1, 2, 3 and Reference No.2 related to Dispute Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7. It was agreed that the present appeal, which arises out of the order in O.M.P. No. 456/2010 may be taken up separately as the issues are distinct from the other.

3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that there are three aspects which are required to be examined in the present appeal:

i) The extra amount awarded for the making of embankment;

ii) The allowing of the claims of the respondent qua toll tax and service tax on transportation imposed by a subsequent legislation;

iii) The award of compound interest even post the award period and that too on both the principal and the interest amount.

4. We now proceed to deal with the aforesaid three aspects though not in seriatim.

The allowing of the claims of the respondent qua toll tax and service tax on transportation by a subsequent legislation:

5. The imposition of tax through a subsequent legislation is, admittedly, akin to the issue of additional royalty, which already forms subject matter of adjudication in various pronouncements of this Court. This issue was once again examined in a recent pronouncement in FAO (OS) No.451/2012, titled National Highways Authority of India v. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd., decided on 18.09.2012. Thus, while considering appeals on the same issue raised by the appellant in FAO (OS) No.49/2012 and 433/2012, we considered it appropriate only to extract the reasoning already recorded in Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) rather than once again pen down the same thought which is already reflected in our aforesaid judgment by this Bench. Thus, for dealing with this issue, we follow the same course of action and reproduce our observations as under:

“2. The learned Single Judge has noted that the challenge to the award was primarily made in respect of Claims No. 1 & 3, i.e., the claim for payment of additional cost caused by subsequent notification increasing sales-tax on fuels from 2.5% to 5% and the claim for payment of additional cost caused by subsequent notification increasing royalty on soil, sand and boulders, which were allowed by the Arbitral Tribunal, apart from the grant of interest. The learned Single Judge has observed that these issues are covered by Division Bench judgments of this