Award and interim award would be disposed of in the same manner.

This O.P. is filed under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the interim award/order dated 26.10.1998 made by the arbitral tribunal consisting of the respondents 2 to 4 herein. For convenience sake, in this order the petitioner Board herein is referred to as the Board, the first respondent firm as the Contractor and the respondents 2 to 4 arbitrators.

The brief facts of the case are as follows :

The Contractor M/s. Aban Constructions is a registered partnership firm. They entered into two out the work of providing inside lining and outside coating with cement mortar for MS Raw Water and Clear Water Transmission main and laying and joining by welding and testing to the required pressure and commissioning on turn-key basis under Coimbatore and Salem Water Supply Schemes. The above agreements were not signed by the partners of Contractors or by their Power of attorney but only by one Rajasekara Kurup. The said work was awarded to the Contractor in November, 1991 and the same has to be completed within 12 months from the date of signing the agreement. It is alleged by the Board that because of the inability and mismanagement of the Contractor they could complete the work in part by December, 1994 only and the Board was constrained to complete the balance work through other agencies and recover the extra cost from the contractor. The contractor had been paid the entire amounts due to them under the agreement on their raising the final bill. The contractor has initiated arbitration proceedings in January, 1998 in respect of certain alleged disputes arising out the contract agreements Nos. CE/WBP/15/91-92 and CE/WEP/16/91-92 entered into between the Board. The arbitrators were nominated as the arbitral tribunal by the parties. The Board has filed their reply statement on 26.2.1998 by way of objections to the claims made by the respondent before the arbitrators. The jurisdiction issue was agreed to be tried as preliminary issue and the counsel for the both sides have advanced arguments on this question. Further it was contended by the Board before the arbitrators that the claim itself has been filed on the basis of the arbitration clause contained in the contractor. The contract entered into between them is not valid as such the arbitration clause is also void/invalid and that the contract has been entered into the name of M/s. Aban Constructions but the contract was signed by one Rajasekara Kurup who has nothing to do with the firm and hence the contract is invalid/void. In reply, on behalf of the contractor it was contended that Rajasekara Kurup is a Power of Attorney Holder of the contractor as such he was competent to represent firm. After considering the documents produced by the parties and deposition of the witness the arbitrators by their interim order/award dated 26.10.1998 overruled the objections regarding the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and proceeded further. Aggrieved by the said interim award the present O.P. is filed. The respondent has filed a detailed counter statement vehemently opposing the said O.P. on the ground that the said order cannot be construed as an interim award and the arbitrators have rightly overruled the objections of the Board.The arbitral tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration as follows :

(i) Whether M/s. Aban Constructions is a mere name and neither a living person nor a legal entity and if so the claim made by such a legal non-entity is liable to be dismissed in limine ?

(ii) Whether there are no valid arbitration clauses in the agreement dated 8.11.1991 for referring the disputes now raised and hence this arbitral tribunal has no power/authority/jurisdiction to arbitrate the disputes ?

(iii) Whether the TWAD Board has no power or authority to enter into agreements with arbitration clauses for referring the disputes for arbitration and hence the agreements for arbitration are null and void ?

In respect of World Bank Project