The court emphasized the importance of complying with the Payment Clause of the Agreement and the need for parties to raise objections at the outset before the Tribunal. It also highlighted the principle of 'audi alteram partem' and the scope of appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

JUDGMENT

K.R. Mohapatra, J. - This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Arbitration Act') has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 21.12.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Cuttack in ARBP No.2 of 2002, whereby he dismissed the Arbitration Petition filed by the present appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and confirmed the award dated 16.06.2001 passed by learned Arbitration Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in Arbitration Case No. AAD- 8 of 1997.

2. Short narration of facts necessary for proper adjudication of this appeal are as follows:

2.1 The respondent, which is a small scale industry (for short, 'the Contractor') was awarded with the contract for 'Structural Fabrication of C.C. Shop in SMS/inside the RSP' (Sub package No.104-3) by the appellant-Corporation (for short 'the Corporation'), which is a Government of Odisha Undertaking, registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, with certain terms and conditions mentioned in the work order under Ext.1. On completion of the work assigned, further work orders were issued by the Corporation in favor of the Contractor on 09.03.1994, 18.04.1994, 01.09.1994 and 12.12.1994, which were also executed by the Contractor. The Contractor raised certain disputes alleging non-payment of part of the bill amount after execution of such work, which was delayed till 03.02.1995, non-payment of escalated labour charges, nonissuance of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) certificate in favour of the Contractor for which it had to pay the Tax again and irregular payment of running bills etc. Several other claims/disputes were also raised. The Contractor although made claim vide letter No. CME/OSIC/96 dated 06.02.1996 (Ext. 10) on the aforesaid irregularities, but its claim was refuted by the Corporation vide letter No.280/OSIC dated 24.02.1996 (Ext.11) alleging that the Contractor had not returned surplus Prime German Steel off-cuts and scrapes, for which the cost of materials was deducted from the account of the Contractor vide its reply to under Ext.12. As the dispute between the parties could not be resolved, the Contractor moved the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of High Court of Orissa in MJC No. 115 of 1997 under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an Arbitrator. Taking into consideration the letter of the Corporation dated 24th October, 1996 (Annexure-9 to the said MJC) expressing their wishes for adjudication of the dispute, if any, by learned Arbitration Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (for short 'Tribunal'), Hon'ble the Chief Justice, by order dated 22.10.1997 referred the matter to learned Tribunal. The Contractor filed a claim of Rs.6,11,658.73 on eight heads along with interest @ 18% per annum from 16.01.1995 till payment. The details of such claim are as under:

Claim Item No.1 Running Bill	Rs. 03.97,053.00
Claim Item No.2 Escalated labour charges	Rs. 43,902.73
Claim Item No.3 Income tax deduction certificate	Rs. 02,963.00
Claim Item No.4 Rent paid for hiring of machineries and not issuing release order of the machineries which are lying idle	Rs. 88,800.00
Claim Item No.5 Wages to worker which could not finalized the affair, though work was completed on 16.01.1995 to 03.02.1995	Rs. 16,140.00
Claim Item No.6 Keeping the office for guarding machineries for watch and ward of staff which was not released after completion of the work	Rs. 52,800.00
Claim Item No.7 To meet expenditure for sending their authorized representatives to Rourkela frequently for ten times for finalization of the same.	Rs. 05,000.00
Claim Item No.8 Financial loss sustained in paying the arbitrators and their counsel for referring the matter to approach the Honble Court towards payment o