IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)

BEFORE:

The Hon’ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur EOS/6/2006 M/S. BIPTRADE, REP. BY BIPLAB BOSE Vs.

UNION OF INDIA For the petitioner : Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr .Adv.

Mr. Shuvojeet Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Suvadeep Sen, Adv.

For the UOI : Mr. Pramod Kumar Drolia, Adv.

Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Adv.

Heard on : 24.09.2025 Judgment on : 24.09.2025 Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.:

1. GA 2 of 2025 is an application for recalling of an order dated 19 May

2025 by which the main petition EOS 6 of 2006 was dismissed for default. Having considered the grounds as well as the prayer for condonation of delay of 14 days in the filing of this petition, I am satisfied as to why the petitioner was unable to appear on 19 May 2025 when the main petition was dismissed for default. The delay in filing of the application is condoned. The order dated 19 May 2025 is recalled. The main petition being EOS 6 of 2006 is restored to its original file and number. In view of the above, GA 2 of 2025 stands allowed.

2. By consent of the parties EOS 6 of 2006 and all connected applications are taken up for hearing.

3. This is an application under sections 14(2) and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking necessary orders to make the award a Rule of Court and for consequential reliefs. Pursuant to the filing of the above application, the respondent had also filed an application under sections 30, 31 and 33 of the Act of 1940 inter-alia challenging the award dated 20 December

1997 being Mis. Case No. 22 of 1998.

4. Briefly, the respondent had issued a tender for construction of a Technical and Administrative Accommodation at Purnea Airbase. The petitioner was the successful bidder and its bid was accepted on 13 November 1986.Thereafter, the contract was awarded in its favour. The aggregate value of the contract was Rs.19,98,422.12/-. Subsequently, a work order was issued on 27 November 1986 with a direction to complete the same within 15 months from the date of handing over the concerned site. A formal agreement was also executed between the parties on 2 December 1986 and the work site was handed over to the petitioner on 11 December 1986.

5. It is alleged that the petitioner failed to carry out the entire work in terms of the contract although the respondent had diligently released payments against running account receipts as per the contract. Upon failure of the petitioner to complete the work, within the time limit specified therein, the respondent by a letter dated 11 March 1988 cancelled the entire contract.

6. In view of such cancellation, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause as contained in the conditions of contract requesting the Chief Engineer to refer the disputes arising out of the contract to a Sole Arbitrator. On 19 December 1996, a Sole Arbitrator was appointed who published his award on 20 December 1997.

7. The primary ground for challenge is that the award is unreasoned. It is contended that the award is a non-speaking award and is contrary to the agreement between the parties. In view of clause 70 of the GCC, the Sole Arbitrator was obliged to furnish findings for each of the claims allowed. It is further alleged that the award dated 20 December 1997 is a nullity in view of the fact that the petitioner had invoked the arbitration clause after expiry of more than 3 years from the date of the cause of action which arose on 22 April 1995 (three years after the date of termination i.e. 11 March, 1988).

8. On consideration of the impugned award, it is evident that the Sole Arbitrator has only provided figures under each head without assigning any reasons which is in violation of the agreement between the parties. In Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. v. Eastern Engg. Enterprises, (1999) 9 SCC 283, it has been held as follows:

44. From the resume of the aforesaid decisions, it can be stated that:

(a) It is not open to the court to speculate, where no reasons are given by the arbitrator, as to what impell