The court upheld the principle that an arbitral award must state reasons for its decisions and that an award for pre-reference payment of money is entitled to carry interest for pendente lite and post-award periods.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. By way of this judgment, I propose to decide the abovementioned four petitions filed by the parties as mentioned above under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) who have challenged the common Award dated 24th March, 2014 passed by one Sh.Niranjan Singh, sole Arbitrator, in respect of disputes relating to purchase order dated 27th July, 2009 against the tender dated 10th September, 1998 by Department of Telecommunications (DOT) and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) (hereinafter referred to as the “DOT/BSNL/Government”).

2. The DOT is a Government of India Enterprise having its registered office at Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi 110 001.

3. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. is a Government of India Enterprise and has been made in the party in the arbitration proceeding as it had taken over the Union of India w.e.f. October 1, 2000 who is having its registered office at Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110 001.

4. M/s. BWL Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “BWL/company”) is a company engaged in manufacturing of Optic Fibre Cable

5. Brief facts of the case are that the Government floated a tender No.MM/OF/0611998/000146 dated 10th September, 1998 for procurement of 2292 Kms. of 6F Aerial Optical Fiber Cable alongwith accessories and fixtures.

6. The items accessories and fixtures had to be procured by the bidder only through the type approved sources and the supplies were to be made within two to six months from the date of the Purchase Order.

7. At that time, there was no approved manufacturer available for the same and BWL along with some other bidders pointed out this anomaly to the Government to which the Government by letter dated 7th October, 1998 replied that “.....for accessories and fixtures, the bidders have sufficient time before the supply is to start and they must get type approval within next three month. If there is any problem in getting type approval within this time, the matter will be reviewed by DoT at that time.”

8. After receiving the assurance, BWL as per its case submitted its offer through letter No.BWL/MKT/147/98-99/1228 on 14th October 1998 and the tender was opened on 15th October 1998 and it applied for type approval on 17th November, 1998, the source from where it had to procure the fixtures for the Purchase Order.

9. The Government thereafter issued an Advance Purchase Order No.CT/APO/120/98-99 to BWL on 4th January 1999 for supply of 1146 Kms. of 6F Aerial Optical Fibre Cable with accessories. BWL gave its acceptance to the Advance Purchase Order dated 4th January, 1999 by a letter dated 22nd January, 1999 and also furnished a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.30,22,000/- valid up to 21st January, 2001, but by its letter, BWL also informed that till that time no type approval was available and the said fact should be kept in mind while prescribing delivery period in purchase order. DOT issued 1st P.O. No.CT/PO/096/98-99 dated 2nd February, 1999 for 6F, OFC along with accessories and fixtures with rates and quantities prescribed and delivery period of 4 months i.e. upto 1st June, 1999. The BWL had also apprised DOT about non availability of any type approval in the market and as such to extend the delivery period by 8 months vide its letter dated 5th February, 1999 and 5th March, 1999. The said company again requested DOT to extend the delivery period vide its letter dated 15th April, 1999, 27th April, 1999, 26th May, 1999 and 11th June, 1999 by another 4 months as the type approval for fixtures was still not available.

10. BWL, the source from where it had to procure the fixtures for the Purchase Order in question had applied for type approval including that of infrastructure assessment on 17th November, 1998. Type approval was granted by TEC on 2nd July, 1999 i.e. after a period of almost eight and a half months whereas the original delivery period was only four months which included the time to be taken towa