The interpretation of contract clauses, such as clause 11(C), and the application of legal principles from relevant judgments are crucial in determining the sustainability of arbitration awards.

GOVINDARAJAN, J.

The above Appeal in O.S.A.No.27/1995 arise out of the order passed in O.P.No.370/1994 dated 24.8.1994. The said O.P. Was filed by the appellant under Sec.30 of the Indian Arbitration Act 1940, to set aside the award passed by the 2nd respondent dated 20.7.1993 with reference to the dispute between the 1st respondent and the appellant. O.S.A.No.25/1996 is directed against the order and decree made in O.P.No.397/1994, dated 22.9.1995 filed by the appellant under Sec.30 of the Arbitration Act, to set aside the award passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 5.3.1994 in the matter of dispute between the first respondent and the appellant.

2. In these two cases, the main issue in question is similar and the contesting parties are also same, though the subject matters of contracts are different. Hence, this Court is inclined to deal with the matter in the common judgment.

3. On the basis of the tender issued in June 1988, the first respondent submitted their bid with respect to the following works:-

(a) construction of LRMR Air-craft Hangar and related works;

(b) construction of Air-craft Hanger and connected works;

(c) construction of septic tank and related works.

The contract was awarded to the 1st respondent, and an agreement was entered into thereon. Certain differences arose between the 1st respondent and the appellant out the above said contract entered into between them. So a request was made to refer the disputes to an arbitrator and the 2nd respondent was appointed as an arbitrator by a letter dated 27.11.1992. After examining the pleadings and other materials both documentary and oral evidence, the 2nd respondent filed his award dated 20.7.1993. To set aside the said award, the appellant filed O.P.No.370/94. The learned Judge in the order and decree dated 24.8.94 rejected the case of the appellant. Hence the appellant filed the above Appeal in O.S.A.No.27/1995 and the learned counsel submitted his arguments only with respect to claim Nos.3,17 and 24.

4. Similarly, the same 1st respondent was awarded a contract in 1988 for construction of roads and allied work at NAS, Arakonam. In view of certain disputes between the appellant and the 1st respondent arose out of the said contract, the matter was referred to an arbitrator. The 2nd respondent was appointed as an arbitrator by a letter dated 24.6.1993. The 2nd respondent after considering the pleadings and the documents, passed the award on 5.3.1994. Aggrieved against the said award, the appellant filed O.P.No.397/94 under Sec.30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the same.

5. The learned Judge in the order and decree dated 22.9.1995 rejected the case of the appellant. Hence the appellant has filed these Appeals in O.S.A.Nos.27/1995 and 25/1996 and that the learned counsel has submitted his arguments only with respect to clam Nos.3,5 and 13 to 16.

6. The points that arise for consideration in these Appeals are:-

(1) Whether the award passed by the Arbitrators with respect to claim Nos.3 and 5 in O.P.No.397/1994 and claim Nos.3 and 17 in O.P.No.370/1994 are sustainable?

(2) Whether the award with respect to claim No.24 in O.P.No.370/1994 and Claim Nos.13 to 16 in O.P.No.397/1994 is sustainable, as it is contrary to clause 11(C)of the contract which prohibits any compensation as a result of extension of time granted by the Department?

7.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not pressed their Appeal in so far as claim No.3 in O.P.No.370/1994 is concerned. So, we are not dealing with the same, though it is also the subject matter of the Appeal.

8. With respect to claim No.17, in O.P.370/94 learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the finding given by the arbitrator has no basis and the contractor has no right to claim any payment for providing additional platform. The said claim is for a sum of Rs.4,46,028/- on the basis that the appellant forced the 1st respondent to put the additional platform and so the appellant is liable to pay the said amoun