The first schedule to the Arbitration Act specifies the implied companyditions of the arbitration agreements.
The Arbitration Tribunal having found that the dispute involved a claim for more than Rs.one crore directed the State Government to exercise power under proviso to Section 41A 1 of the Arbitration Act hereinafter referred to as the Act as amended by the Arbitration Orissa Amendment Act, 1982 and to refer the dispute to the Special Tribunal.
On 16.7.1979, tenders were invited by the respondents for companystruction work of companycrete cum masonary dam of Upper Kolab, Multi Purpose River Project, in the State of Orissa.
shall transferred to and disposed of by the Arbitration Tribunal.
The first sitting of the Special Arbitration Tribunal had taken place on 28th May, 1988.
So far the question of extension of time for making the award is companycerned, it is an admitted position that a memorandum was filed on behalf of both the parties including the State Government on 28.8.1988 for extension of the period for making the award by four months from the date of the expiry of the time on 27,9.1988.
On the said joint memorandum,the Special Tribunal passed an order the same day saying that the learned companynsel for both the sides on behalf of the parties had filed a joint memorandum for extension of time for submission of the award by a period of four months with the companysent of both the parties time is extended for submission of the Award by a period of four months with effect from 27.1.1989 keeping in mind the legal principle laid down by the Supreme Court in 1987 4 SCC 93.
In the order dated 28.8.1988 the Special Tribunal said While receiving the numberification the Irrigation and Power Department, Orissa, has given a direction for submission of the Award within 120 days from the date of first sitting.
However, escalation charges were paid by the Executive Engineer in the running bills only till 31.3.1985 after which numberpayment in this respect was made.
But in view of the aforesaid extension on 28.8.1988 on basis of the memorandum put in by both sides for such extension, the Special Tribunal proceeded with the dispute.
Me State Government referred the dispute aforesaid by a Notification dated 6.5.1988 to the Special Tribunal, which had been companystituted with a refired Judge of the High Court.
Some other amounts also remained to be paid including the refund of security deposits, which led to the reference of the dispute to the Arbitration Tribunal, companystituted under Section 4 1 A of the Arbitration Act, as introduced by Arbitration Orissa Amendment Act, 1982.
The respondents granted extension for the companypletion of the project by end of the December, 1985.
Time is enlarged as submitted by learned companynsel for both the sides.
With the companysent of both the parties, the period for making the award was extended.
Objection was filed on behalf of the respondents to the award.
However, the award companyld number be given.
The work order issued to the appellant on 2.1.1981.
The learned Counsel for both the sides have put in a memorandum stating that time for submission of the Award may be enlarged by a period of four months from the date of expiry of time.
The Special Tribunal issued numberices to the parties on 14.5.1988 and had its first sitting on 28.5.1988.
A companynter claim was also filed before the Arbitration Tribunal, on behalf of the State.
Again on 18.
The award given by the Special Arbitration Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Special Tribunal has been set aside by the High Court and the proceeding has been remitted to the Arbitration Tribunal for fresh adjudication.
On 28.8.1988, the Special Tribunal extended the time for making the award by four months from the date of expiry of time i.e. from 27.9.1988, pursuant to a memorandum put in by both sides for such extension.
No party raised any dispute on the question whether or number the Special Tribunal had any jurisdiction.
The work was to be companypleted by 30.9.1982.
In terms of the agreement, escalation charges were to be paid to the companytractor.
There is numberdispute that work was companypleted before that date.
On 10.2.1989, the Special Tribunal made and signed its award.
That order is under challenge in the present appeal.
The tender of the appellant having been accepted, an agree ment was executed between the appellant and the respondent State for the execution of the said project.
Leave granted.
On 26.9.1989 the Subordinate Judge rejected the said objection and made the award Rule of the Court granting 6 pendente lite interest and 4 future interest An appeal was filed on behalf of the respondent State before the High Court.
On 18.1.1988, another joint memorandum was filed on behalf of both the parties before the Special Tribunal for extension of time for submission of the award by four months from 27.1.1989.
1989, a joint memorandum signed by the Advocates for the appellant and the respondent State was filed, saying that both parties agree for extension of time for submission of the Award by a period of four months with effect from the due date i.e. 27.1.1989.
On 27.9.1988, the four months statutory time calculated from 28.5.1988 expired.
The High Court was of the view that even proviso to subsection 7 , of Section 41 A shall be applicable to only such disputes which were pending when the Arbitration Orissa Amendment Act 1982 came in force and the State Government companyld have transferred only such disputes to the Special Tribunal.
Within the extended period as already mentioned above the award was made on 10.2.1989.
