So far as the appellant Union of India was companycerned, they did number file any appeal against that part of the order of the Single Judge which had rejected substantially their application filed under Section 34 of the Act.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2017.12.08 162125 IST Reason The issue involved in the appeal is short and, therefore, it is number necessary to set out the entire factual scenario of the case except to the extent necessary to appreciate the issue.
Arbitrator CRSE, Churchgate and ii Shri S.K. Kulshrestha, Jt.
The Single Judge, by order dated 21.04.2003, allowed the appeal in part and made two modifications in the arbitral award with respect to the date of award of interest on the claim of respondent No.1 for damages and on the claim of one purchase item.
The order making the reference to the Arbitral Tribunal reads as under There is numberdispute that claims Nos.
So far as the challenge to other claims including award of interest on such claims were companycerned, the Single Judge rejected the appellants all objections and upheld the award in totality for all purposes.
In this view of the matter, the award to that extent became final.
The High Court, by order dated 27.07.2001, with companysent of both the parties allowed respondent No.1s application and referred the various claims 1 to 17 made by the respondent claimant against the appellant for their adjudication by the Arbitral Tribunal, which companysisted of three Arbitrators Railway Officials .
It was held that numberground under Section 34 of the Act had been made out by the Union of India to modify the award to the extent of awarding interest on the claim.
1.3 Loss of 4,65,409 2,32,703 Profit Revised to Rs.
Respondent No.1 claimant , felt aggrieved against that part of the order of the Single Judge which interfered in part in the arbitral award, filed appeal before the Division Bench.
In other words, in the opinion of Division Bench, the ground on which the limited interference was made by the Single Judge for setting aside a part of the Award in relation to award of interest from a particular date on two 2 claims to respondent No.1 claimant was number a ground falling under Section 34 of the Act and, therefore, the order of Single Judge was number legally sustainable.
stators of TAO 659 Traction Motors of Electric Locomotives type WCAMI of Electric Loco Shed Valsad was awarded by the Union of India Railways the appellant herein to respondent No.1 claimant on 19.12.1994.
1.2 Material 3,00,723 3,00,723 purchased number utilized.
1 to 13 which are mentioned in the letter dated 19th August, 1999, Exhibit B to the Application, are already referred for arbitration to Shri B.B. Verma, Presiding Joint Arbitrator FA CAO I , Churchgate and two other Arbitrators, i Shri Arunendra Kumar, Jt.
4,44,620 1.4,1.5 1.4 4,65,409 3,41,830 2.1 Overheads during 3,89,165 companytracted period 3,06,748 under utilized 1.5 Overheads from 9.6.1995 to 4.3.1996 2.1 Overheads from 5.3.1996 to 30.06.1996 1.7 2.2 1.7 3,28,085 1,64,042 Amount for the period 1.7.94 to 29.6.1996 1,24,174 2.2 Amount for the period 5.3.96 to 30.09.1996 1.6 Payment 85,106 85,106 under price variation clause 1.8 2.3 Payment of As accrued 12,89,033 2.4 pre lite interest from 13.12.95 to 5.5.99 Total 27,62,214 The appellant Union of India, felt aggrieved of the Arbitral Award, challenged its legality by filing an application under Section 34 of the Act in Bombay High Court Single Judge .
By impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed respondent No.1s appeal and set aside the order of the Single Judge.
total first and second Rs.12,89,033/ on the awarded sum.
1.1 Loss 6,97,554 3,48,777 suffered due to under utiliz ation of equipment purchased specially for this companytract.
By Consent, claim at Sr.
It is against this order, the Union of India Railways felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
Brief facts A works companytract repairing work of 25 No.
The Arbitral Tribunal, by their unanimous reasoned award dated 11.09.2002, partly allowed the claims of respondent No.1 against the appellant as under Claim Brief Claim Amount No.
Arbitrator CE, N.F. Railway.
2.1 and at Sr.
Description Amount in awarded in Rs.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal is filed by the Union of India against the final judgment and order dated 11.02.2005 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Appeal Ld No.666 of 2003 in Arbitration Petition No.96 of 2003 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1 herein and set aside the order dated 21.04.2003 passed by the Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No.96 of 2003.
