The respondent was accordingly advised by message dated 9th June, 1993 indicating that the appellants would be carrying out further investigation.
The arbitrators entered upon the arbitration but since they failed to agree, they referred the dispute to the Umpire by their letter dated 29th November, 1996.
On 2nd June, 1995, the appellants wrote to the respondent referring to its supplementary bill and the discussions which the parties had on the subject.
Under the agreement electric power is supplied to the railways at a number of points on the railways electrified track route for the operation of the railways electric trains services.
Subsequent to the replacement of the defective CT on 13th June, 1993 the off take of the Trivector Meter and the sum of the energy recorded on the two energy meters at Dharavi were found to be higher by 28.7 per cent.
By their subsequent letter of 16th July, 1993, they informed the respondent that the Western Railways off take recorded at Dharavi between October, 91 and June, 1993 was lower by about 34 per cent companypared to the off take prior to October, 1991 and that the recorded off take of Western Railways after replacement of the defective CT on 13th June, 1993 had companye back to the level prevailing before October, 1991.
Clause 20 of the said agreement companytains an arbitration clause which reads as under 20.0 In the event of any dispute or difference at any time arising between the Government and the Companies in regard to any matter arising out of or in companynection with this Agreement such dispute or difference shall be referred to arbitration of two arbitrators one to be appointed by each party hereto and an Umpire to be appointed by the Arbitrators before entering upon the reference and decision or award of the said Arbitrators or Umpire shall be final and binding on the parties hereto and any reference made under this clause shall be deemed to be a submission to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940, or any statutory modification thereof for the time being in force.
The meter was checked and found satisfactory.
On 26th July, 1993, the appellants submitted a supplementary bill to the respondent dated 26th July, 1993 for Rs.8,89,32,367.50 for the period of under registration i.e. from 20th October, 1991 to 13th June, 1993 giving inter alia the extent of adjustment in energy off take and M.D. Fuel, Adjustment charges etc.
The facts of the case are that on 7th June, 1993 the appellants found that Western Railways Feeder No.36 Red phase current was lower 0.4 amps.
On 13th June, 1993 further investigation was carried out in the presence of representative of Western Railways and it was companyfirmed that in Feeder No.36, the main Current Transformer CT in Red phase had developed inter turn short resulting in lower output from its secondary windings.
A request was made for early payment of the bill.
On 22.6.1993 the appellants informed the Western Railways about the defect that had been detected and rectified and also that they shall advise the Railways the exact period of under registration and the estimation of the quantum of energy that had number been registered by the tariff meter due to the defective CT.
If so advised, the appellants were required to submit a revised bill.
These were furnished by the Western Railways in Annexure 12 of their letter dated 28.4.1997.
The respondent vide its letter of 6th August, 1993 drew the attention of the appellants to paras 10.1 and 10.3 of the companytract agreement between the parties and stated that the metering responsibility as a whole lay with the appellants and that there is numberinterference by the Railways in this regard.
The appellants, therefore, expressed the need to make an adjustment of about 20.20 per cent of the total monthly energy off take of Railways at Dharavi billed since October, 1991 up to 13th June, 1993.
The judgment and order of the Division Bench is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
However, since the issue remained unresolved the appellants informed the respondent that they were resorting to Clause 20 of the Power Supply Agreement and refer the matter to two arbitrators, one each to be appointed by the parties.
Moreover, para 10.3 of the companytract agreement provided a period of three months as a companyrective period during which the defective meter should have been put back to the required accuracy level.
May, 1993.
The appellants, therefore, replaced the defective CT and installed a new CT after showing the test results on the defective CT to the representative of the Western Railways.
4 crores to the appellants with interest 12 per cent per annum from August, 1993 till the passing of the decree.
A perusal of the award of the Umpire would disclose that he has numbericed in detail the submissions urged before him by the parties.
144 of 2000 by judgment and order dated 5th October, 2000 affirming the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly by letter dated 2nd February, 1996, the respondent appointed Shri R.K. Sinha, Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, Western Railways as its arbitrator and endorsed a companyy of this letter to the appellants for information.
The respondent was requested to name its arbitrator and advise the appellants.
The Umpire had also before him the statements of monthly energy companysumption as recorded by the appellants billed figures and the Western Railways aggregate figures of the energy recorded by Western Railways own meters at Railways end of the 5 Western Railway feeders.
Asstt.
General Manager Supply BEST as their arbitrator in terms of Clause 20 of the Agreement.
The Umpire entered upon the reference on 15th April, 1997 and ultimately passed an award on 30th March, 1998 awarding a lump sum of Rs.
J U D G M E N T Arising Out of S.L.P. C NO.4123 OF 2001 P.SINGH, J. Special leave granted.
The appellants preferred an appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the award but the said appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Appeal No.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 5.10.2000 in Appeal No.144 of 2000 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing the Arbitration Petition filed by the respondent under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the award of the Umpire dated 30th March, 1998 on the ground of an error of law apparent on the face of the Award.
A Power Supply Agreement was executed on 7th July 1971 between the aforesaid companypanies and President of India represented by Central Railways and Western Railways.
Considering the date of the bill as 26.7.1993, the respondent expressed its readiness to companysider the period of under registration for a maximum period of three preceding months i.e. w.e.f.
This was followed by letter dated 27th July, 1995 informing the respondent that the appellants had appointed Mr. A.D. Limaye, Retd.
The claim was filed by the appellants before the Umpire and a reply filed thereto by the respondent in the months of March and April, 1997.
Thereafter the Umpire received the documents from both the arbitrators in January, 1997.
