The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of limitation to determine the validity of claims in arbitration proceedings, as well as the interpretation of contractual provisions regarding 'no claim' certificates and the prohibition on interest.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Original Petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside claims 1,2,3,5,7 and 12 of the Award dated 22.05.2014, and subsequently modified on 02.06.2014 to the extent that it directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.3,44,12,752.95 payable with interest at 9% per annum from 31.08.2005 within a period of two months from the date of the Award and thereafter with interest at 18% per annum till payment and for costs.)

1. The respondent in the Arbitration Proceeding is the Petitioner before this Court. The dispute arises out of a contract dated 09.12.1991, which was awarded to the first Respondent by the Petitioner pursuant to a tender for works related to the handling at site stores/storage yard, transportation to site, pre-assembly, erection and commissioning of structures, galleries, pressure parts, non pressure parts, air pre-heaters, pulverized fuel piping, boiler integral piping and ducts etc. for the second boiler (Unit II) of the 2 x 500 MW Units at Talcher Super Thermal Power Project for NTPC, Kaniha, Telcher District, Orissa. After the award of the contract, a detailed Letter of Intent was issued on 20.01.1992 and the Final Agreement No.PS:SM:SSHQ:CON:345 was executed on 11.09.1992 (the Contract). The total contract value was Rs.6,76,16,100/- and the total quantity of work that was envisaged under the Contract was 17775 metric tonnes(MT). The execution of work commenced on 11.01.1992 and was completed in July 1997. Subsequent thereto, the final bill was submitted on 25.06.1998 and a meeting took place between the parties on 16.07.1999 with regard to the resolution of outstanding issues/claims. Eventually, the final bill was paid on 24.02.2000. Thereafter, the first Respondent/Contractor invoked the arbitration clause and after a petition was filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(the Arbitration Act), the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted to resolve the dispute. The first Respondent herein made 12 claims for an aggregate sum of Rs.38,44,12,752/-. Upon completion of pleadings, the Arbitral Tribunal framed 20 issues, including an issue as to whether the claims are barred by limitation. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. The first Respondent herein adduced evidence through Mr. Deshpande(CW-1) and 85 documents were exhibited through CW-1 as Exhibits C-1 to C-85. The Petitioner herein adduced evidence through Mr.Upadhyay, who was examined as RW-1, and 33 documents were exhibited as Exhibits R1 to R-33. Upon consideration thereof, the Arbitral Tribunal pronounced the Arbitral Award dated 22.05.2014 (the Award), whereby an aggregate sum of Rs.3,95,41,716.29 was awarded to the first Respondent with interest thereon at 9% per annum from 31.08.2005 until 22.07.2014 provided the Award amount is paid within the said time limit and, in the event of default, with interest at 18% per annum for the period subsequent to 22.07.2014 till the date of payment. The Award was corrected under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act by order dated 02.06.2014, which was made an integral part of the Award. The Award is impugned herein by the respondent in the Arbitration Proceedings.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.Krishna Srinivas, and the learned senior counsel for the first Respondent, Mr.N.C.Ramesh.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner opened his submissions by pointing out that a sum of about Rs.3.95 crores was awarded to the first Respondent notwithstanding the fact that the total contract value was about Rs.6.76 crores. In view of the fact that the Arbitration Proceedings commenced prior to 23.10.2015 and the Section 34 Petition was filed in the year 2014, he pointed out that the law as it stood before the amendment in October 2015 would apply to this dispute.

His principal and overarching contention was that all the 12 claims are barred by limitation and should have been rejected on that basis by the Arbitral Tribunal. In