ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

This Commercial Appeal has been filed by the TRF Limited (in short, Company) under section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act , 2015 to challenge the order passed in Arbitration Case No.4 of 2019 passed by the Commercial Court, East Singhbhum, at Jamshedpur.

2. This Commercial Appeal was filed on 10th June 2020 and taken up for hearing on 30th September 2020, when notice was directed to be issued to Shiva Shakti Engineering Construction (in short, claimant). The proceedings in this appeal indicate that on the request of the Company it was granted permission to serve dasti summons and an affidavit affirming service of dasti summons upon the claimant has been filed. This appeal was taken up on 27th June 2023 but on that day also no one appeared for the claimant.

3. Therefore, by an order dated 24th July 2023, the Registry was directed to transmit a copy of the order to the claimant at the address disclosed in the present appeal.

4. Notwithstanding that, no one appears on behalf of the claimant. Constrained, we have heard this appeal in absence of the claimant.

5. The challenge laid by the Company to the order dated 16th January 2020 passed in Arbitration Case No.4 of 2019 is confined to a limited issue in law that; whether or not the Arbitrator could have made the award beyond the reference?

6. Briefly stated, for “Erection and Commission of RMHS- (Package-A)” the work was awarded by Tata Steel Limited to TRF Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Company’) on 3rd December 2012 which, in turn, invited quotations from other agencies for completing the subject work. The Company has pleaded that the subject work for a value of Rs.4,96,06,800/- was allotted to the claimant and MOM dated 16th April 2013 was issued. Raising a dispute, the claimant invoked Clause 15 and the learned Arbitrator was requested by both parties to enter upon the reference. The subject work could not be completed in time and according to the Company the blame squarely lies on the claimant. The claimant has referred to amendments in the purchase order on different dates starting from 17th December 2013 to 8th March 2016 by which the scope of work was gradually and substantially reduced. According to the Company, the purchase order was reduced to Rs.1,28,90,574.60 because the claimant was not able to perform and it had to engage another agency to finish the remaining 75% work. The learned Arbitrator issued notice to both the parties and they filed their respective claims and counter-claims.

7. The claimant raised claims under 4 heads viz. (i) Rs.93,00,844/- for unpaid bills against the work executed (ii) Rs.11,42,867/- for idle manpower and machinery (iii) Rs.25,43,152/- as loss of profit and (iv) interest @ 2% over and above SBI PLR per annum over the claim nos.1, 2 & 3.

8. For a better appreciation of the dispute before the learned Arbitrator, we would extract the claims made by the claimant under the following 4 heads which are recorded in paragraph no.13 of the award, as under:

“Claim No. 1

The claimant having executed the work meeting to the conditions of the purchase order and having raised the bill against the work so executed is entitled for Rs. 93,00,844/- pertaining to unpaid bills as per abstract of payment over and above Rs. 11,42,567/- as idling cost and as Rs. 75,00,000/- towards cost of machineries forcibly detained.

Claim No. 2 – Compensation for idling of manpower and machinery

The claimant has raised bill for idling of manpower of Rs. 11,42,867/- and the same has been duly certified by the representative as per the an