Point of Law : On appreciation of evidence is the realm of the Tribunal and that court under Section 34 cannot re-appreciate evidence as is done in civil appeals and that it is only when Tribunal bases its conclusion on irrelevant and extraneous matters, an interference would be called for.

JUDGMENT :

C.S.Sudha, J.

Can an Arbitral Tribunal pass more than one award? Does the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) contemplate a Majority Award and a Minority Award? Can the Presiding Arbitrator direct the remaining two Arbitrators to write separate Awards and then adopt one, without giving separate or independent reasons either for accepting one and rejecting the other? No, says Sri.S.Vinod Bhat - the learned counsel for the appellant. According to him, passing multiple awards and the procedure adopted by the Presiding Arbitrator in accepting one Award without giving his reasons for the same, are violations or breach of the provisions of Sections 29 and 31 of the Act. We will examine the tenability of this argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The appellant herein is the sole respondent and the respondent herein, the claimant in the arbitration proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three Arbitrators, namely, Mr. Justice J.B. Koshy, the Presiding Arbitrator; Mr. Justice K.A. Abdul Gafoor (Arbitrator no.1) and Mr. Justice K. Sampath (Arbitrator no.2). Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, the appellant herein moved the District Court under Section 34 of the Act. The court below partly set aside the Award. Not satisfied with the same, the present appeal has been filed. Parties will be referred to as described before the Arbitral Tribunal.

3. A brief reference to the facts of the case –

The Greater Cochin Development Corporation (GCDA) which owns the Jawaharlal Nehru International Stadium (the Stadium), Kaloor, Kochi decided to construct a roof for the Stadium and hence invited tenders for the same vide tender notice dated 14.03.2006. The claimant quoted for the work and was qualified in the technical bid. However, they failed to qualify for the commercial bid as they had no previous experience of completing a job of the value of Rs.5 Crores, which was a pre-requisite for the bid. As the respondent was the successful bidder, the work was allotted by the GCDA to them. Pursuant to this, there were discussions between the claimant and the respondent as the former had drawings ready with them for the work which the respondent desired to utilise for the work. The claimant expressed willingness to execute the work as a sub-contractor under the respondent. Hence, the respondent entered into a sub-contract with the claimant relating to designing, submission of drawings, supply of materials, fabrication and erection of the roof structure, except the roofing. The total value of the work was fixed at Rs. 615 lakhs. The Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 16.07.2007 issued by the respondent was approved by the GCDA. The period for completion of the work was fixed as five months from 22.10.2007. Accordingly, the work order was issued. As per the work order, the claimant had to design, fabricate the frames of the roof and erect the same using scaffoldings. During the course of execution of the work, disputes arose relating to the demand made by the claimant for clearing the periodical bills. The request of the claimant was not acceded to by the respondent. According to the claimant due to the nonpayment of the bills as well as labour unrest, the progress of the work was affected. Out of the 28 modules of space frame, only one could be erected. Due to the slow pace of work, negotiations and talks took place between the parties. It was then decided that the claimant would be relieved of the job of erection of the frames, which would be taken over by the respondent. Accordingly, M/s. BECPL was engaged for the erection of frames by using a crane. Thereafter, M/s.BECPL also withdrew from the work and then M/s.BAVA Engineers Pvt. Ltd. was engaged for executing the work of erection of the frames. While so, disputes again arose between the parties relating to the working of M/s.B