C O M M O N O R D E R

This common order will govern the captioned three 'Arbitration Original Petitions' [hereinafter 'Arb OPs' in plural and 'Arb OP' in singular for the sake of convenience and clarity].

2.'Three separate arbitral awards, bearing reference A.F.No.71 of 2019, A.F.No.74 of 2019 and A.F.No.73 of 2019, all dated 10.02.2021' [hereinafter 'impugned arbitral awards' collectively in plural and 'first impugned arbitral award', 'second impugned arbitral award' and 'third impugned arbitral award' respectively wherever necessary for the sake of convenience and clarity]

have been assailed in the captioned three Arb OPs.

3.Mr.B.Mohan, learned standing counsel for 'Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited' ['BSNL'] is before this Court on behalf of the petitioners in the captioned Arb OPs. Learned counsel for petitioners has favoured the respondent in the captioned Arb OPs with one set of papers being prior notice within the meaning of sub-section (5) of Section 34 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity] though this sub-section (5) of Section 34 of A and C Act has been held to be directory (not mandatory) by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhumi Vikas Bank case law [State of Bihar Vs. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti reported in (2018) 9 SCC 472]. On receipt of such prior notice, Mr.Amalraj S.Penkilapatti, learned counsel is before this Court on behalf of the respondent in the captioned Arb OPs. In this order, from here on and henceforth 'petitioners' in the captioned Arb OPs shall be referred to as 'BSNL' and the 'respondents' in the captioned Arb OPs shall be referred to as 'contractors' in plural and 'contractor' in singular, for the sake of convenience and clarity.

4.With the consent of counsel, all three captioned Arb OPs were taken up together when they were listed in the Admission Board. Learned counsel for BSNL submitted that the facts are identical, only the figures are different and therefore, facts in first of the captioned three Arb OPs namely Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.191 of 2022 will suffice.

5.Short facts, shorn of elaboration are that BSNL engaged various contractors for work that has been set out in Annexure B of an agreement dated 29.12.2001. Though this Annexure B has not been placed before this Court, it is submitted without any disputation or disagreement that the work is for laying of underground cable in Chennai Telephone District inter alia by excavation and refilling. Adverting to the pleadings before the 'Arbitral Tribunal' ['AT'], it is submitted that the scope of work includes 'trenching, laying the cable, filling the trenches partly with sea sand and thereafter with excavated earth' which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'said work' for the sake of convenience and clarity. As there is no disputation regarding this i.e., the scope of said work, it is not necessary to dilate further on this aspect of the matter. This Court is also informed that specific work orders were issued to the contractors. After said work was completed, disputes arose between BSNL and contractors regarding unpaid bills. It is submitted that the disputes largely centered around whether sea sand filling was done. There was an earlier round of arbitration, awards were made and the same were set aside by this Court. Thereafter, a former Hon'ble Judge of this Court was appointed as sole Arbitrator in Section 11 petitions and this former Hon'ble Judge constituted the 'Arbitral Tribunal' ['AT' for brevity] (sole Arbitrator) and impugned awards came to be rendered by AT.

6.Though several averments have been made and several grounds have been set out in the petition in the captioned Arb OPs, learned counsel for BSNL submitted that the entire matter turns on one point and to be noted this lone point was urged/projected in the hearing in his campaign against the impugned awards. This one point is, the contractors have not provided any bills or supporting document