Public policy of India to be given wider meaning.

P. Sathasivam, J.

Chennai Port Trust is the appellant in the above appeals. The above O.S. Appeals are filed against the common order dated 31.01.2000 made in O.P.Nos.305 of 1999 and 518 of 1999. O.P.No.305 of 1999 is filed by the Chief Engineer, Chennai Port Trust under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short "the Act") against the interim award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal dated 03.12.1998 and O.P.No.518 of 1999 is against the final award passed in the said O.P., dated 24.04.1999.

2. Since the issue raised in both the appeals are inter-connected and one and the same, the appeals are being disposed of by the following common judgment. For convenience, we shall refer to the parties as arrayed before the learned single Judge.

3. The petitioner - Chennai Port Trust called for tenders for construction of Eastern Wall of Boat Basin. Among the tenders, the first respondent - Contractor herein was successful and its offer was accepted by the petitioner. The period fixed for completion of the work was 18 months. The work was awarded to the first respondent on 31.08.1994. The site was taken over on 23.09.1994. It is not in dispute that the first respondent also availed mobilisation advance of Rs.25,72,112/- on 04.01.1995 and pre-installation charges of Rs.5 lakhs on 11.10.1994. Thereafter, dispute arose between the parties with regard to execution of the work in terms of agreement, for which three Arbitrators were appointed as Arbitral Tribunal in May, 1998. The first respondent filed a claim petition and the petitioner also filed a counter as well as their counter claim. Based on the request of the first respondent and on their application dated 04.06.1998, the Arbitral Tribunal, on 07.11.1998 passed an interim award for Rs.5,72,389.75, against which the petitioner has filed O.P.No.305 of 1999. The Arbitral Tribunal passed the final award on 24.04.1999. Total claim made by the first respondent - contractor was Rs.217.49 lakhs and total counter claim made by the Port Trust was Rs.100.40 lakhs. The award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in favour of the contractor - first respondent is for Rs.58,87,300/- together with interest at 18% per annum. The Tribunal has rejected all counter claims in the final award dated 24.04.1999. As said earlier, Chennai Port Trust has filed O.P.No.518 of 1999 against the final award. Both the matters were heard together by the learned Single Judge of this Court. After considering the claims of both the parties and the awards of the Tribunal, by order dated 31.01.2000, the learned Judge dismissed both the Original Petitions as devoid of merits. Against the said common order, the Chennai Port Trust has preferred the above appeals.

4. Heard Mr. R.S. Jeevarathinam, learned counsel for the appellant - Chennai Port Trust and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsel for the first respondent - contractor.

5. Mr. R.S. Jeevarathinam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant after taking us through the claims of both the parties, agreement dated 31.08.1994 and awards passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, would contend that inasmuch as the final Arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy, this Court has ample power to interfere and set aside the same under Section 34 of the Act. He also contended that the learned single Judge has not considered the sufferings and loss caused to the Port Trust, which is a public authority.

6. On the other hand, Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsel for the first respondent - contractor contended that inasmuch as based on the acceptable materials, the Arbitral Tribunal has passed an award and the same was considered by the learned single Judge and rejected the stand taken by the Port Trust and in view of settled position of law that the scope of interference by this Court is very limited after the enactment of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

7. We have carefully considered