The main legal point established in the judgment is that revised claims in arbitration proceedings must be submitted with the consent of the other party or with the approval of the Arbitrator, and significant delays in submitting revised claims without proper justification may render them impermissible.

V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral):

This order shall dispose of the objections filed by the objector under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the Act, against the award, dated 15.5.2009, passed by arbitral tribunal comprising of Shri T.L. Sharma (Retired Engineer-in-Chief).

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the matter was referred to the Arbitrator for arbitration in respect of the disputes relating to the work of “C/o Residential Complex below BCS (Phase-II), New Shimla (SH: Providing external sewerage connection to various types of houses and plots including C/o septic tank). Agreement No.15 of 1993-94.” The Arbitrator entered upon the reference on 25.8.2007 and various sittings were held by the Arbitrator and vide award dated 15.5.2009, the Arbitrator passed the award in respect of different claims put up before the Arbitrator. The award was filed in this Court and objections under Section 34 of the Act were filed by the Objector. Reply was filed by the non-objector/claimant.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

4. The first and the main submission made by the learned counsel for the objector was that the Arbitrator had entered into reference and statement of claim was filed on 19.9.2002. Further, revised claim was submitted by the claimant on 17th hearing i.e. on 10.7.2008, which was entertained by the Arbitrator by invoking the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. However, it was submitted that the Arbitrator had not considered the question that provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC were not attracted to the proceedings under the Act and there was no provision for submission of the revised claim after lapse of sufficient time and, therefore, the Arbitrator was not justified in considering the revised claim or awarding the claim, which was against the public policy and as such was liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Act.

5. According to the provisions of Section 34 of the new Act, the arbitral award can be set aside if the party making the application furnishes its proof that the award was in conflict with the public policy of India. It could be set aside on the ground that the arbitration agreement was not valid, no proper notice was given or the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent had tried to justify the award made by the Arbitrator on the ground that the post of Arbitrator was vacant for some time and, therefore, the revised claims were put up before the Arbitrator.

7. To consider the plea raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, facts of the case have to be considered. As per the Award, initially Superintending Engineer, Arbitration Circle, HP PWD, Solan, was appointed as Arbitrator, vide letter dated 12.2.2002. Thereafter, vice notification dated 2.7.2003, the Superintending Engineer (North), H.P. Housing Board, Shimla was appointed as an Arbitrator to make award regarding claims/disputes under Clause 25 of the agreement. He held some sittings and thereafter it appears that he tendered his resignation. Thereafter, Shri T.L. Sharma was appointed as sole Arbitrator vide letter dated 25.8.2007. He started the proceedings further and concluded the hearings on 2.4.2009. Revised claim was submitted by the claimant on 10.7.2008. Respondent had not consented to the revised claim as per Section 23 of the Act and objections were filed in this regard also. Reply was filed by the claimant to the objections for taking on record the revised claims.

8. It was alleged by the claimant that the claimant had received final payment and copy of the final bill was submitted by him on 14.10.2003. Therefore, he had submitted his claims on the basis of final bill. This was alleged in the replication to the revised/amended claim of the claimant submitted before t