O R D E R

This Petition has been filed to set aside the decretal Order dated

10.10.2017 passed in E.P.No.1683 of 2015 in Arbitration Award dated

07.08.2014 by the learned IX Assistant Judge, Chennai.

2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted his arguments.

As per his submissions, this case arose out of a simple subject matter. The Respondent is in contract with the Petitioner with regard to the dispute. The work was carried out by the Contractor/Respondent and payment paid by the Petitioner(Railways). It was referred to Arbitration. The learned Arbitrator had passed the award. After passing the award, there was a typographical error regarding the award i.e., the amount of Rs.71,28,382/- ought to have been paid to the Respondent. Since there was typographical error, the Petitioner had addressed the learned Arbitrator regarding the award. Accordingly, he had perused the award and passed fresh Arbitral Award. Earlier, the Award was passed on 07.08.2014 since there was a typographical error in the calculation of Rs.500/-, the Petitioner had addressed the same to the learned Arbitrator.

Accordingly, he accepted it and set right the typographical error.

2.1. Originally the award passed on 07.08.2014, the revised award i.e., rectification of the award passed on 24.09.2014, the Petitioner had paid the dues to the Respondent after accepting the remuneration without objection and regarding full satisfaction. As a second thought, the Respondent had filed a claim petition for Rs.500/- as balance amount as per the original award and also the difference in payment based on the Petitioner having deposited the amount after deduction of Income Tax deducted at source. After passing of award, the Decree Holder questioned the act of the Petitioner in deducting the Income Tax at source, when the Respondent ought to have paid only 2% regarding the award. Therefore, totalling Rs.71,28,880/- paid by the Petitioner who is the Judgment Debtor before the Executing Court. The Petitioner had come before this Court since the Petition in E.A.No.2504 of 2018 was dismissed by the Executing Court. After filing this Petition, this Petition was admitted, notice was served and the order of interim stay was granted against the Decree Holder in Execution Petition /Respondent.

3. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent is a Railways Contractor paid on the basis of the measurement book. Since there were outstanding dues, the Petitioner herein (Railways Authority) had not paid. Therefore, they referred to Arbitration. As per the Arbitral Award, within 90 days the award amount has been paid by the Principal. Here to avoid payment of the same, the Petitioner had addressed the letter to the learned Arbitrator seeking removal of typographical error. Accordingly, revised/clarified arbitration award was passed on 24.09.2014 after including Rs.500/- which was left out from the original award. The Respondent who is the Decree Holder before the Executing Court paid the dues immediately on receipt of clarified award. They had paid within 90 days. The Respondent who is the Decree Holder had after receipt of the payment, acknowledged the same and also without objection. Subsequently, filed Objection stating that as per the earlier award dated 07.08.2014, the award ought to have been paid within 30 days, since there was a delay from 24.09.2014, the Decree Holder calculated the amount to be paid by the Petitioner and also sought refund of the amount that was deducted at source towards Income Tax.

3.1. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Decree Holder that only to cause delay that the typographical error was raised and the copy of the same not at all furnished to the Decree Holder. After expiry of 90 days, only the Decree Holder approached the Executing Court for execution of the decree. It is the practice of the Petitioner (Railway Authority) that they will not furnish copies to the opposite party as well as the Court.

3.2.