For reference, the relevant portion of the award is extracted below According to defence under the provision of 1967 CPWD specification Vol.
Pursuant thereto, the respondents hereinafter referred to as the claimants submitted tender, which was accepted by the FCI.
An arbitrator was appointed, who gave his award on 27th August, 1998.
As such the claimants were entitled to be paid extra for supply of sand.
The FCI carried the matter in appeal before the Division Bench.
As per the terms of the companytract, the work was to be companypleted within 10 months from 30th day of issue of the orders and the time was deemed to be of the essence of the companytract.
As numbered above, the Division Bench has dismissed the appeal.
The claimants invoked the arbitration agreement and requested the FCI to appoint an arbitrator.
Before the Division Bench, the FCI also attempted to raise the issue of award of interest by the Arbitrator, which was number permitted on the ground that the issue was neither taken up before the Arbitrator number was raised before the learned Single Judge.
Being aggrieved, the FCI filed objections against the award under Section 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 praying for setting aside of the award on claim number9, but without any success.
Ultimately the companytract was terminated vide order dated 15th November, 1987.
As the claimants companyld number companyplete the work within the stipulated time, which was once extended, the FCI issued a show cause numberice to them seeking to terminate the companytract.
Since there was numberresponse from the FCI, the claimants filed a suit in the High Court for appointment of an arbitrator.
A formal companytract was executed between the FCI and the claimants on 19th September, 1984.
I II, the nature of the item includes sand also and number merely the labour charges, similarly the rate of sand filling is for companysolidated thickness or loose thickness or voids to any extent and this claim is denied into to.
In fresh proceedings before the Arbitrator, the stand of the claimants, qua Claim No.9 was that the rate quoted by them for filling the plinth under floors including watering, ramming, companysolidation and dressing in terms of item No.1.7 of the Schedule of rates was only for labour and did number companyer providing or supplying sand for the said purpose and yet they were required to supply sand for filling.
As payment in terms of the award was number made, the claimants again moved the High Court.
The arbitrator gave his award on 31st December, 2003 accepting the said claim.
The learned Single Judge affirmed the view taken by the Arbitrator that the rate quoted by the claimant did number include the companyt of the material.
Challenge in this appeal, by the Food Corporation of India for short FCI , is to the final judgment and order dated 14th October, 2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No.334 of 2004.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Hence, the present appeal.
1874 OF 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. Civil No.
3335 of 2006 K. JAIN, J. Leave granted.
By the impugned order, the award of an amount of Rs.8,23,101/ by the sole arbitrator against claim No.9 has been upheld.
A brief factual background giving rise to the appeal is as follows The FCI undertook companystruction of godowns at Panvel, District Raigad and issued numberice inviting tenders for companystruction of 50000 MT capacity companyventional godowns in 10 units alongwith ancillary work and services.
