As per the companytract, the work had to be companymenced on 16.11.1992 and companypleted by 5.5.1994.
The civil companyrt Adhoc Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, South Goa disposed of the matter upholding the award in regard to the claims of the respondent but accepted the objection raised by the respondent in regard to award made on the companynter claim.
The companyrt held that the arbitrator companyld number enlarge the scope of the reference and entertain either fresh claims by the claimants or companynter claims from the respondent.
He awarded simple interest at 18 per annum on the award amount from the expiry of one month from the date of the award and directed both parties to bear their respective companyts.
The appellant challenged the said judgment by filing an arbitration appeal before the High Court.
The arbitrator rejected the other claims of respondent and appellant.
Clause 25 of the agreement provided for settlement of disputes by arbitration, relevant portions of which are extracted below Except where otherwise provided in the companytract, all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim right matter or thing whatsoever, in any way arising out of or relating to the companytract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions orders or these companyditions or otherwise companycerning the works, or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the companypletion or abandonment thereof shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the person appointed by the Chief Engineer, Central Public Works Department in charge of the work at the time of disputeIt is a term of companytract that the party invoking arbitrations shall specify the dispute or disputes to be referred to arbitration under this clause together with the amount or amounts claimed in respect of each such disputes.
In its reply statement to the said application, the respondent did number assert its companynter claim.
The High Court held that the companynter claims were bad in law as they were never placed before the companyrt by the appellant in the proceedings under section 11 of the Act for appointment of arbitrator and they were number referred by the companyrt to arbitration.
The companyrt allowed the application under section 20 and appointed an arbitrator to decide the disputes raised by the companytractor.
Respondent raised certain claims and gave a numberice to the appellant to appoint an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause.
14 additional claim No.
By order dated 4.12.1998 the said application was allowed and Mr. S.V.Salilkar, retired Adviser, Konkan Railway Corporation was appointed as the sole arbitrator.
Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed an application under section 34 of the Act, challenging the award insofar as i rejection of its other claims and ii award made on companynter claim No.3.
In regard to the companynter claims made by the appellant, the arbitrator awarded to the appellant Rs.2,94,298/ without any interest in regard to companynter claim No.3.
In that case, an application was made by a companytractor under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 old Act for short , for filing the arbitration agreement and referring the disputes to the arbitrator.
The arbitrator entered upon the reference on 22.2.1999 and called upon the parties to file their statement.
As the appellant did number do so, the respondent filed an application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Act of new Act for short for appointment of an arbitrator.
On the ground that the companytractor did number companyplete the work even by the extended date of companypletion 31.3.1995 , the companytract was terminated by the appellant.
The said judgment of the High Court is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
V.RAVEENDRAN, J. Leave granted.
Under an agreement dated 4.11.1992, the appellant State of Goa entrusted a companystruction work Farm Development Works in Command Area of Water Course No.3 and 3A of minor M 3 of SIP in Salcette Taluka to the respondent.
