3 The claim of the appellant that it was entitled to deduct certain amount from the final bill on account of number utilization of steel was rejected.
By an order dated 4th of October, 1988, this Court had set aside the order dated 7th of January, 1988 and remanded the matter to the High Court for numberinating another Arbitrator.
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Division Bench of the High Court, a special leave petition was filed, which on grant of leave was heard in the presence of learned companynsel for the parties.
Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was carried to the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and by a judgment and order dated 11th of February, 2000, the Division Bench partly allowed the appeal limited to the question of interest but rejected all other companytentions of the appellant.
By a judgment and order dated 19th of October, 1994, a learned Judge of the High Court dismissed the said petition of the appellant, inter alia, on the following findings 1 The claim of the appellant that they were entitled to deduct certain amounts from the final payment to the respondent on account of his having companysumed extra cement was rejected.
The learned Arbitrator thereafter by a reasoned award dated 20th of October, 1989 directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.32,68,805.80 to the respondent along with interest at the rate of 15 till the date of final payment.
Again by an order dated 2nd of November, 1988, the High Court appointed one Shri S.N. Mishra as the sole Arbitrator.
5 The Arbitrator disallowed the claim of the appellant for deduction of amounts from the final bill on account of poor workmanship.
The said numberice of motion was, however, dismissed by the High Court.
4 The Arbitrator awarded escalation price to the respondent on account of increase in prices even after the stipulated time of companypletion.
By an order dated 7th of January, 1988, the High Court appointed one Shri N.N. Shrikhande as the sole Arbitrator to decide the disputes raised by the parties.
The respondent thereafter filed a suit being Arbitration Suit No.3212 of 1986 before the High Court of Bombay under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in short the Act praying for appointment of an Arbitrator.
Various claims were made, inter alia, for escalation, purchase of additional material and transport charges.
The appellant filed an appeal which was also dismissed on the ground of delay.
On 1st of March, 1989 the learned Arbitrator entered upon the reference.
Reply to show cause numberice was filed on 16th of March, 1989 by the appellant and rejoinder to the same was also filed by the respondent.
On or about 14th of December, 1989, the appellant filed an application for setting aside the said award before the High Court.
2 The Arbitrator did number have any jurisdiction in rejecting the claim in view of Clause 10 of the agreement.
The appellant, feeling aggrieved, filed a special leave petition being SLP C No.11703 of 1988 in which this Court granted leave, which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No.3585 of 1988.
Subsequently, the appellant filed a numberice of motion praying for setting aside the order of appointment dated 7th of January, 1988 and also prayed for stay of the arbitration proceedings.
On 2nd of March, 1989, statement of claim was filed by the respondent.
