IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

M/s Kohli Builders and Developers

Private Limited

M/s VISA Steel Limited

Order No.

06.

1.

Two

23^rd October, 2021 passed by the Court below

petition under section 34 in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Mr. Das, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of appellant in

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

ARBA No.1 of 2022

(Through hybrid mode)

M/s Kohli Builders and Developers

….

Mr. S. S. Das,

Ms. S. Modi, Advocate

Mr. S.Das, Advocate

Mr. S. Das, Advocate

Mr. S. Pattanaik

(Respondent in ARBA No.22 of 2022)

-versus-

….

Mr. Gautam Mukherji,

Mr. Manoj Kumar

Ms. M. Mishra, Advocate

Mr. R. Mohapatra, Advocate

(Appellant in ARBA No.22 of 2022)

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

ORDER

24.08.2022

ARBA No.1 of 2022

and

ARBA no.22 of 2022

Two appeals have been preferred against judgment dated

October, 2021 passed by the Court below

under section 34 in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Mr. Das, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of appellant in

Page 1 of 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

Appellant

Das, Senior Advocate

Ms. S. Modi, Advocate

Mr. S.Das, Advocate

Mr. S. Das, Advocate

Mr. S. Pattanaik, Advocate

(Respondent in ARBA No.22 of 2022)

Respondent

Mukherji, Senior Advocate

umar Pati, Advocate

. M. Mishra, Advocate

Mr. R. Mohapatra, Advocate

(Appellant in ARBA No.22 of 2022)

ARINDAM SINHA

appeals have been preferred against judgment dated

October, 2021 passed by the Court below on the challenge

under section 34 in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Mr. Das, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of appellant in

// 2 //

Page 2 of 7

ARBA no.1 of 2022 while Mr. Mukherji, learned senior advocate

appears on behalf of appellant in ARBA no.22 of 2022.

2.

On perusal of the award dated 23^rd April, 2016, as corrected

on 24^th May, 2016, it appears claims of the claimant (appellant in

ARBA no.1 of 2022) were allowed in part. Counter claims made

by respondent in the reference (appellant in ARBA no.22 of 2022)

were rejected. Hereinafter, reference to the parties will be as they

were in the reference.

3.

Claimant was the contractor. Respondent had invited tender

for construction of guest house. During working out of the contract

a further contract was entered into for constructing administrative

building. Several amendments to the contracts were made. Times

for conclusion were mentioned in the contracts, including

provision for imposition for liquidated damages.

4.

It appears from the award and impugned judgment that

claimant completed 90% of the work in respect of the guest house

and only about 10% of the work regarding the administrative

building. The Court below also recorded submission of respondent

that Rs.5,02,46,963/- was paid in respect of guest house against

contract value of Rs.5,24,94,736/- and Rs.2,74,15,294.32/- against

Rs.7,85,29,4220/- being contract value, towards construction of the

// 3 //

Page 3 of 7

administrative building. Mr. Mukherji hands up a chart showing,

inter alia, claims made by claimant and particulars of

award/rejection thereon. It appears from the chart that claims for

work done, escalation, interest on delayed payment, additional

tools and plants, charges for extended period, additional overhead

for extended period, loss of profit, insurance charges, idle charges

and shuttering charges were allowed to claimant at aggregate

amount mentioned in impugned judgment at Rs.8,33,17,519/-

along with interest at 9% per annum on a lesser sum as directed

therein. Respondent had challenged the award. By impugned

judgment respondent though obtained success in having it set

aside, it, later and during pendency of appeal filed by claimant,

also preferred appeal. Mr. Mukherji submits with reference to

impugned judgment that other genuine grounds of challenge to the

award were not dealt with by the