The arbitration agreement's validity is independent of stamp duty on the substantive contract, and courts have limited grounds for interfering with arbitral awards.

JUDGMENT :

M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J.

Aggrieved by the Order dated 30.11.2011 in Original Petition No.960 of 2006 (impugned Order) passed by the learned Principal District Judge at Nalgonda, wherein the application filed by appellant to set aside the Award dated 24.08.2006 passed by learned Arbitrator-respondent No.2, was dismissed.

02. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned Arbitrator.

03. Respondent-Barath Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), represented by the General Manager, Telecom, Nalgonda issued seal tenders from the experienced civil contractors for the digging trenches, laying underground cables, carrying out jointing, erection of DPs, termination at Pillars, DPs etc. for the divisions of Nalgonda (Rural&Urban), Miryalaguda, Bhongir, Suryapet, Kodad and Devarakonda. Claimant was the successful tenderer for the said works. As per the Clause 28 of the Tender Schedule, the agreement should be executed by and in between respondent and claimant on stamp paper of Rs.100/- but the agreement was written on a stamp paper of Rs.20/-. Further, agreement does not contain the signature of respondent-BSNL, so, there is no agreement of contract between the BSNL and the successful tenderer. A dispute arose with regard to payment of Interest on the alleged delayed payments for the work done by Claimant for Nalgonda District.

04. Initially, the matter was referred to the Chief General Manager, BSNL, Hyderabad, for settlement of pending bills. On 27.05.2004, a Committee was constituted consisting of DMG, HTD as Chairman, CAO, Central HTD, AGM (L&B), DM, DE (Planning), CO, Hyderabad, and after hearing the parties, the Committee directed BSNL to pay the bills but at the time of hearing, Claimant did not raise the issue of payment of interest on the alleged bills. Further, on 20.08.2004 after hearing both sides, pending bills were settled. At that time, Claimant has not claimed any interest on the delayed amounts on the ground of delay in payment of the bills. He received amount without any protest. Claimant referred the matter to the learned Arbitrator i.e., respondent No.2 as per Clause-6 of the Tender Notice, in the agreement to appoint an Arbitrator accordance with the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996. As per Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , the nature of dispute should be referred by both the parties to the Arbitrator in writing on a stamped paper worth of Rs.100/- and it should contain signatures of both parties agreeing to refer the disputed between to a particular Arbitrator and the said Arbitrator should give his consent for settling the dispute.

05. Claimant approached this Court by way of Writ Petition in W.P.No.8250 of 2004 and this Court vide Orders dated 03.12.2004 granted leave to Claimant for approaching appropriate forum for redressal in view of arbitration clause in Tender Agreement. Pursuant to the Orders of this Court, the learned Arbitrator-respondent No.2 was appointed for settlement of disputes. Notices were issued to the parties. After giving reasonable opportunities to both sides and after duly considering the facts and consequences of the case, the learned Arbitrator passed an Award dated 24.08.2006 holding that Claimant is entitled for interest on delayed payments and the computation of interest was passed.

06. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner-BSNL filed Original Petition No.960 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge at Nalgonda, however, the same was dismissed vide Order dated 30.11.2011. Aggrieved by the same, appellant-BSNL has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to set aside the impugned Order dated 30.11.2011.

07. Heard Dr. Pundla Bhasakara Mohan, learned counsel for appellant-BSNL and Sri K.R. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Claimant and perused the record available before this Court.

08. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the impugned Order dated 30.11.2011 in Origina