Tribunals award for payment of compensation erroneous.

P.K. Misra, J.

This appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge in O.P.No.352 of 1998, which was filed by the appellant to set aside the award dated 2. 2001 rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal.

2. Appellant is a Public Limited Company. A contract was entrusted by DCM (hereinafter referred to as DCM in short) with M/s. Crompton Greaves Limited (hereinafter referred to as CGL in short), the appellant, for an aquaculture unit to be setup by such Principal, namely, DCM. CGL invited tenders for carrying out certain works for construction of ponds, channels, drains and associated works. M/s. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the present respondent, who was the fourth respondent, in O.P.No.352 of 1998, gave its proposal, estimate and quotation for carrying out the work. Thereafter CGL placed a letter of indent and M/s. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd., made several queries and raised certain clarifications and by letter dated 10. 1994, CGL amended the contract as suggested by M/s. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter CGL issued work order on 111. 1994 setting out the terms and conditions of the work. After commencement of the work, on 1. 1995, CGL instructed the employees of M/s. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd., to stop the work. M/s. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd., claimed compensation for such pre-mature termination of the contract and ultimately a dispute was referred to Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three arbitrators, who were impleaded as respondents 1 to 3 in O.P.No.352 of 1998. Initially M/s. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd., has lodged a claim for Rs.54,21,170.45 which was later on reduced to Rs.53,83,980.45. The Arbitral Tribunal passed award on 30.4.1998 directing the present appellant, namely, CGL to pay a sum of Rs.1,78,222/- towards interest on the admitted amount of Rs.4,18,5550. Such later amount was admittedly paid during the proceedings. The Arbitral Tribunal also passed award for a sum of Rs.24,73,268/-for the loss due to unproductive use of machineries. The Arbitral Tribunal, however, had rejected the claim of M/s. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd., on loss of profit. Thereafter the present appellant filed O.P.No.352 of 1998. Against the dismissal of such petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the present appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Act.

3. The averments which were made in the claim statement filed before the Arbitral Tribunal can be noticed. The claimant had enclosed the proposal on 24. 1994 and the appellant accepted the same on 27. 1994 and placed the letter of indent. As per such letter of indent, M/s. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd., as to complete the work within eight months after mobilisation. Such mobilisation has to be done within 14 days. The schedule of price and terms of payment have been indicated in the letter of indent. Clause 10 of the letter of indent provides for compensation for idle equipment and manpower in the event of stoppage of work beyond 7 days. The rates for such idle charges were, however, not communicated to the claimant and, therefore, M/s. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd., addressed a letter dated 28. 1994 raising several queries on the letter of indent. The claimant and the present apellant held discussion on the basis of which the claimant set out the rates of idle hours for individual items of equipments. CGL in reply dated 10. 1994 pointed out that the work had started in the last week of July 1994, but only intermittent work was possible due to several problems. Since certain defects were pointed out by M/s. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the CGL has agreed to compensate M/s. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd., to that extent. The rates for idle machinery and labour were also set out in that letter. By a further letter dated 10. 1994, the CGL amended the contract value of Rs.2,08,99,250/- and requested the claimant to mobilise the required machinery to complete Phase I and Phase II. The CGL thereafter issued wor