The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award are limited and must fall within the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sambasiva Rao Naidu, J.

Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, dated 15-03-2018 in Arbitration O.P.No.116 of 2011 by which his request for setting aside the Award dated 09-08-2007 passed by the learned Arbitrator in respect of his Claims No.4 to 6 and 9 of his claim statement was dismissed, the petitioner in the said Arb.O.P.No.116 of 2011, and claimant in Arbitration application No.7 of 2004 filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on various grounds.

2. Before going into the merits of the appeal and grounds on which the present appeal is filed, it would be necessary to look into the details of said Arbitration Application, Award passed by the learned Arbitrator, petition in the Arbitration O.P., and order therein.

3. Prior to 1990, the Railway Board took a decision to run the trains on a track free from harsh sounds, bumps and jerks which occur at the joints of rails. A policy was evolved to join the rails through welding process so that there will not be any joint between the rails, which generally cause sounds, bumps etc., A Transport system consisting stanchion rakes and chute system was required for completing the above task. Therefore, the Railways called for tenders for developing such transport system. The appellant in the appeal participated in the tender and the same was accepted, an agreement was entered into between appellant and respondents No.1 and 2 herein on 05-02-1990 and that appellant has completed the said work.

4. It further shows that in view of the successful completion of the above work, the respondent No.1 herein has entrusted similar work to the appellant on 07-08-1990. He has completed the work and handed over one stanchion rake on 24-11-1990 and another stanchion rake on 02-01-1991 and other equipment on 15-01-1991. The respondents herein proposed the rates quoted in the first agreement dated 05-02-1990, but appellant did not agree, thereby, he was called for negotiations on 07-04-1992. After negotiations, the 1st respondent adopted the same rates as per agreement dated 05-02-1990 and issued acceptance letter. The appellant herein has protested the same but accepted the proposal by his letter dated 24-02-1992 subject to review of the rates. It was the grievance of appellant that in spite of his repeated demands, the respondents without any final measurements and without any final bill, sent record of measurements on 09-02-1999. Not satisfied with the said measurements, he got issued a legal notice to the respondents on 15-11-2000 seeking reference to an Arbitrator. The respondents vide letter dated 29-12-2000 refused his proposal for appointment of Arbitrator. The appellant filed A.A.No.296 of 2001 on 07-12-2001 at Hon’ble High Court, Delhi, on the assumption that since the Railway Board is at Delhi, he should file an application at Delhi. His application was returned by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court for filing before the appropriate Court. Then appellant has filed Arbitration Application vide A.A.No.7 of 2004 before the Erstwhile combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh. By an order dated 13-01-2004, a learned Single Judge of the said Court appointed the respondent No.3 herein as sole Arbitrator. The appellant had filed his claim statement raising different claims. The claims of appellant were resisted by the respondents herein by way of a counter filed before the Arbitrator. The respondents have submitted their reply to each and every claim raised by the appellant.

5. The learned Arbitrator having heard both parties and after considering the documents, passed an award on 09-08-2007 holding that the appellant is entitled to Rs.43,11,916-60/- with interest @ 12 % per annum from 15-05-1991.

6. As could be seen from the award, the learned Arbitrator decided to divide first claim of appellant into 2 sub items and held that he is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,58,600/- under sub-item No.1 and to an amount of Rs.33,67,860-76/- under sub-ite