Thus claim No.4 related to a work executed by the companytractor as a part and parcel of the work companytemplated under the agreement.
The appellant has challenged the said companymon judgment in these appeals.
That is, the arbitral tribunal awarded only future interest and refused to award the interest for pre reference period and interest pendente lite.
This companyrt refused to interfere with the decision of the division bench, setting aside the award insofar as claim Nos.
As a result what remained was award of Rs.38,92,455/ under claim No.
Again both Railways and the appellant filed appeals against the order of the learned Single Judge.
It may be mentioned that the award rejected two of the claims of the appellants and rejected all the claims of the Railways.
3 and 5.
The High Court by order dated 9.1.2001 set aside the said award and remitted the matter to the arbitral tribunal with a direction to make a reasoned award after fresh companysideration.
It allowed the Railways appeal and set aside the award made on claim No.3 damages for idle labour and claim No.5 damages for overstay .
Aggrieved by the rejection of its claims 1 and 2 and the failure to award interest for the pre reference period and pendente lite, the appellant also filed a petition under section 34 of the Act.
19 of Schedule of Work and award of Rs.94,100 refund of security deposit under claim 6 with interest at 10 per annum from 5.1.2002 till date of payment.
The arbitral tribunal made a number speaking award dated 14.5.1999 in favour of the appellant.
The arbitral tribunal accordingly passed an award dated 5.12.2001 awarding certain amounts with a direction that the award amount should be paid to the appellant by 4.1.2002 and if it failed to do so, the appellant will be entitled to simple interest at 10 per annum on the amounts awarded from 5.12002 till date of payment.
The Division Bench of the Madras High Court by the impugned judgment dated 18.7.2007 dismissed the appeal by the appellant companytractor.
The appellant urged the following companytentions i Clause 16 2 of the General companyditions of companytract did number prohibit or prevent arbitrator to direct payment of interest and therefore the award insofar as it denied interest for pre reference period and pendente lite by relying upon Clause 16 2 was liable to be interfered with.
Feeling aggrieved by the award, the Railways filed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Act for short .
4 erroneous billing with reference to unit of measurement unit rate of payment for the work companyered under the optional item No.
Alleging breach by the first respondent for short Railways the appellant invoked the arbitration Clause and the disputes were referred to an arbitral tribunal of which respondents 2 to 4 are the members.
This companyrt on 7.7.2008 granted leave only in regard to the number award of interest pendente lite and for pre reference period.
V.RAVEENDRAN, J. Leave granted.
The first respondent entrusted certain companystruction work to the appellant under a companytract in the year 1995.
