The learned Arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction in reviewing the Original Award under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. These cross petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') have been filed by both the parties to the arbitration proceedings, challenging the Arbitral Award dated 10.11.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Amended Arbitral Award') passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.

2. The disputes between the parties arose out of the Work Order for construction/expansion of existing Gas Gathering Station-North placed by Great Eastern Energy Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the `petitioner') on Sopan Projects (hereinafter referred to as the `respondent'). The said disputes were settled by an Arbitral Award dated 25.08.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the `Original Award') passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator. The respondent thereafter filed an application under Section 33 of the Act. On the said application, the learned Sole Arbitrator passed an order dated 25.10.2017, allowing the application of the respondent and making certain corrections in the Award. The petitioner, aggrieved of the said order, filed an application seeking recall of the said order, on which, with the consent of the parties, the learned Sole Arbitrator recalled the order dated 25.10.2017 and the amended Award dated the same. The learned Sole Arbitrator, on hearing the parties on the application filed by the respondent, by an order dated 10.11.2017, allowed the said application and passed the Impugned Amended Arbitral Award. As noted herein above, both the parties to the arbitration proceedings challenge the Impugned Amended Arbitral Award.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the Original Award dated 25.08.2017, the learned Sole Arbitrator had awarded a sum of Rs.32,02,553/- in favour of the petitioner herein, while further directing that the respondent would be entitled to a sum of Rs.24,73,375/- towards Central Sales Tax and Entry Tax. He submits that the petitioner duly implemented the Award as far as the Central Sales Tax and Entry Tax is concerned, and issued Form C to the respondent. It was, therefore, only the petitioner who was to receive a sum of Rs.32,02,553/- from the respondent. He submits that even this amount was adjusted against the amounts awarded in favour of the respondent under the other Arbitral Awards dated 25.08.2017 between the same parties.

4. He submits that by the Impugned Amended Arbitral Award passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, purportedly under Section 33 of the Act, the learned Sole Arbitrator has in fact reviewed his Original Award. He submits that by the Impugned Amended Arbitral Award, the learned Sole Arbitrator has held the respondent to be entitled to Service Tax, a claim that was expressly rejected by the learned Sole Arbitrator in the Original Award.

5. He submits that the learned Arbitrator in the Impugned Amended Arbitral Award has reduced the ad hoc amount admittedly received by the respondent from the petitioner, from Rs.3,31,56,341/- to Rs.2,25,91,275/-, and on basis thereof, instead of the respondent owing an amount to the petitioner, the petitioner has been found liable to pay a sum of Rs.79,08,206/- to the respondent. He submits that this also amounts to review of the Original Award.

6. He further submits that in the Original Award, there was no direction for payment of interest, whereas in the Impugned Amended Arbitral Award, the petitioner has been held liable to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the Statement of Claim and future interest at the rate of 2% higher than the current rate of interest prevalent on the date of the Award. He submits that for award of interest, leave alone the same being in the form of a review of the Award, no reasons have been given by the learned Sole Arbitrator for either the rate or period of interest. He submits that even otherwise, the learned Arbitrator could not have awarded a higher