JUDGMENT

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

Challenge made in this intra-Court appeal is to the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 25.04.2022 in Arb.O.P (Com.Div) No.197 of 2022, whereby, the learned Single Judge rejected the prayer under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to 'A&C Act') to set aside the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, dated

10.02.2021.

2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that under a tender floated by the appellants, inter alia, for laying of underground cables in Chennai Telephones for the year 2001-2002, the respondent was the successful bidder and was awarded the contract. Even though the contract was executed and certain bill amounts were settled, as far as the claim made by the respondent in respect of filling the trenches with sea sand and removal of excess earth laid after closure of the trenches, the bills were not settled. As a matter of fact, since similar claims were made with regard to sea sand filling and excess earth removal by cable laying contractors and PSUs, a Committee was set up by the appellants by its communication, dated 24.03.2004 and the said Committee also submitted its report recommending the release of such claims. Even thereafter, the amounts were not released. Therefore, the respondent raised a dispute and the same was referred to the sole Arbitrator, appointed by the appellants herein, who rejected all the claims of the respondent. The said award, dated 20.03.2013 was set aside by this Court by an order, dated 08.12.2017 and subsequently, de novo proceedings were ordered by appointing a learned Retired Judge of this Court as an Arbitrator.

3. In the second round of arbitration, the respondent filed a Claim Petition seeking to pass an award in terms of the amounts claimed by it under Annexure-A and B to the claim statement. A counter statement was filed by the appellants to the claim statement. In the counter statement, the appellants contended that certain mandatory requirements, relating to removal of earth and back filling of sea sand, were not complied by the respondent and that it did not show cause itself when called for verification. It was further stated that the bill amounts in the unsettled bills were quoted excessively by the claimant.

4. On the strength of the pleadings, the parties went in for trial and on behalf of the claimant, C.W.1 was examined and Exs.C-1 to C-23 were marked. On behalf of the appellants, no oral evidence was let in, however, Exs.R-1 to R-4 were marked. The learned Arbitrator, after considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, passed an award, dated 10.02.2021 awarding a sum of Rs.3,55,255/- along with 12% as pendente lite and post award interest. The claimant was also awarded costs. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein filed a petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act to set aside the award, inter alia, raising grounds (a) the learned arbitrator failed to frame a specific issue pertaining to the quantum of work executed by the claimant; (b) the respondent failed to furnish any documents / bills / invoices for the quantum of sand procured or the transportation costs incurred in the execution of work; and (c) the learned Arbitrator disregarded Clauses-3.7(a&b) as well as Clause-7.1 of the contract agreement for the specification for cable laying work which is binding on the respondent. After considering the submissions made on either side, by the order, dated 25.04.2022, the learned Single Judge found that the view taken by the Arbitrarl Tribunal is not an implausible view and held that the certification in the M-Books and other documents by the appellants at various stages by themselves presupposes that work has been done by the contractor in accordance with the terms of contract. It is also further held that since there is no prohibition in the contract for award of interest, the claimant was awarded pendente lite and post award interest at the rate of 12%