TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o units being two and three. After completion of work, the respondent made payment, however, deducted sums on two counts being crane-hire charges and overrun charge. 2. Taking the second issue first, the Arbitrator in his award dealt with the issue in detail. The learned single Judge in His Lordship's judgment and order impugned dealt with the issue. His Lordship observed, As per Clause 9 of the Agreement overrun charges could neither be claimed nor awarded . The Arbitrator did not consider the objection, a claim on such head was prohibited under the agreement in terms of Clause 9. The learned Judge found, the tribunal clearly erred in entertaining such head and thus set aside the same. We do not have any scope of disagreement on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rged. The contract did not specifically provide for any crane charges for unit No. III. Even if we reject the logic so advanced by the appellant, there was swapping on oral understanding, we cannot convince ourselves as to the authority of the respondent to deduct the crane charges in the absence of any agreement to the said effect. Mr. Dutta, despite his eloquence, has not been able to show a single document making a contemporaneous positive assertion on behalf of the respondent putting the appellant on notice, the crane charges would be deducted. In the absence of any such authority, the deduction, in our view, was erroneous. The Arbitrator might have allowed the claim on a different logic. Our conscience would prick if we allow this part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of the pre-reference period, too. The further fact that the decisions of this Court, including the Jena's case, envisaged four circumstances or contingencies wherein such interest for pre-reference period can be countenanced by the Arbitrator, is by itself sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Arbitrator to entertain and consider the said claim also, and consequently there is no justification to thwart the same even at the threshold denying the Arbitrator power even to entertain the claim as such . In our view, the power of the Arbitrator to award pendente lite interest would derive from Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such power could not be upset by the clause referred to above in view of the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
