The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to a claim under an agreement may not require specific evidence if it is based on the terms of the agreement. Additionally, the discretion of the Arbitrator in awarding interest was upheld.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

1. These appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 23.12.2015 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this court in OMP No. 215/2014 and OMP 297/2014 which were cross petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the appellant and the respondent respectively.

2. Essentially two points were urged before us. The appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the claim no.5/14 which had been allowed by the learned Arbitrator by virtue of the award dated 07.11.2013, was set aside by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment. The other point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the issue of pre-suit and pendente lite interest in respect of 9 claims which had been considered by the earlier Arbitrator by virtue of his award dated 03.10.2006.

3. Insofar as the claim no. 5/14 is concerned, this pertains to the watch and ward arrangement that the appellant had provided at the site till the handing over of the same to the respondent.

4. The submissions of the appellant (claimant) and the respondent as also the reasoning behind the award on this claim as noted in the award dated 07.11.2013 are as under:-

“CLAIM NO. 5/14 :- The claimants claim a sum of Rs.9,75,800/- on account of expenditure on watch and ward staff and charges for overseeing upto 31-10-1998 plus Rs.8700/- per month from 1-11-1998 onwards.

Submissions by the claimants:-

The claimants relied on the submissions made under claim No. 4/13. The claimants further stated that the respondents vide letter dated 14-1-1995 desired to draw supplementary agreement for watch and ward of the completed work and also for execution of some finishing items. In the meanwhile a circular was also issued by the Engineer Member (exhibit C- 27). The claimants vide letter dated 11-11-1997 (exhibit C-28) informed the respondents that the claimants were incurring expenses on watch and ward for the period since October, 1993. The reminder was also sent vide letter dated 30-7-1998 (exhibit C-29). The respondents vide letter dated 20-8-1998 directed the claimants to continue the watch and ward till an alternative arrangement is made. The claimants vide letter dated 31-8-1998 (exhibit C-31) intimated the respondents that 4 numbers of chowkidars are working on 12 hourly shift duty for watch and ward of flats. The supplementary agreement was drawn on 26-6-1999 (exhibit C-36). The agreement which was upto 4-7-2000 was further extended as intimated by the claimants vide letter dated 1-7-2000 (exhibit C-38). The respondents paid a sum of Rs.6,16,604/- vide cheque dated 28-6-1999 and further paid a sum of Rs.85,888/- on 27-3-2000. The claimants submitted the detail of the claim vide annexure C-5 and stated that they are entitled to payment of Rs.11,51,972/- for a period from 22-4-1994 to 31-3-2003 @ Rs.10,736/- per month which was approved by the respondents vide letter dated 22-6-1999 (exhibit C-35). The claimants stated that out of the sum of Rs.6,16,604/- + Rs.85,888/- = Rs.7,02,492/- the respondents recovered a sum of Rs.3,90,074/- vide letter dated 11-9-2006 (exhibit C-52). Therefore, the claimants are entitled to balance payment of Rs.8,39,554/- i.e. Rs.11,51,972/- (Rs.7,02,492 - Rs.3,90,074) = Rs.8,39,554/- The claimants specifically submit that watch and ward of the completed flats was done by the claimants after 22-4-1994 till 31-3-2003 for which supplementary agreement was also drawn between the parties and a sum of Rs.7,02,492/- was also partly paid on the basis of supplementary agreement. No proof or details of security men employed by the claimants were ever asked by the respondents during the period because the payments were determined as per letter dated 22.6.1999. Since the respondents have not paid the full amount of watch and ward and have arbitrarily and illegally recovered a sum of Rs.3,90,074/- in October, 2006, the claimants are entitled to balance payment of Rs,8,39,554/- and requested the Ld.