ndm 1 arbp.545.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 545 OF 2009 Union of India and anr. ... PETITIONERS Vs. Sagar Construction Company and anr. ... RESPONDENTS -------------- Mr. K.R. Chaudhari with N.D. Sharma for the Petitioner. Ms. Shilpa Kapil for the Respondents. -------------- CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 20 th November, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT 1 Heard finally. 2 The petitioners have invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) thereby, challenged the award whereby, the learned Arbitral Tribunal has granted partially three claims i.e. claim Nos. 1, 2 and 8 out of 10 claims and thereby rejected all other claims. 3 So far as, the submissions with regard to no claim certificate ndm 2 arbp.545.09.sxw based upon clause 65 of the contract condition, the learned Arbitrator after going through the material, as well as, the documents on record, has dealt with in detail and rejected the case of the Petitioners for want of substantial material to support their case. The reasoning so given just cannot be said to be perverse and especially as it is based upon condition of the Contract and the facts and specially when it is based upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2008(3) Arbitration LR 633 (SC) National Insurance Co. V/s Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., whereby it has been held that the the claim can be raised even after signing the “No claim certificate” and/or “No further claim”. The claim so raised after signing of the final bills is distinguished as per the conditions in question and hence, is arbitrable as per the principle of equity and fair justice. The submission that, no such claim was raised / agitated, on or before the Officer, in the present facts and circumstances, is unacceptable. 4 With regard to claim Nos. 1, 2 and 8, the submission is that the figures, so refers, have no details about the calculations. The party, when moved a claim petition before the Arbitrator, has material to support the claim with figures. The Arbitrator finds that the party has a case based upon the material and calculations available on record and accordingly, accepted the same partially, and awarded the amount. ndm 3 arbp.545.09.sxw There is no case of want of supporting document of bills. Even otherwise, it is difficult to accept that the claim of the Petitioners is contrary to law and the record for want of contra material on record, specially when the submission is only with regard to details of amount so awarded. The Court need to see the award in totality. Some lacuna or lack of details that itself, in the present case, can not be reason to interfere with the award. It can not be treated as unreasoned award. 5 With regard to interest, the Arbitrator has awarded the interest from 01 st August, 2001 @ 11% per annum. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners conceded to the date of completion of the work. The final bill needs to be submitted within three months and for passing after due verification requires six months more. Therefore, I am inclined to restrict the interest, on the amount so awarded, from 01 st May, 2002 instead of 01 st August, 2001. Considering the fact that it is a work contract / construction contract, the rate of interest restricted @ 9% per annum instead of @11% per annum from 01 st May, 2002. 6 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners has relied on the order dated 04 th September, 2006, passed in Arbitration Petition No. 200 of 2006 between the same parties. It was admittedly, of some different contract. The Court cannot overlook the factual reasoning given ndm 4 arbp.545.09.sxw by the learned Arbitrator considering the material and documents on record. Therefore, also this order is of no assistance to the Petitioners. 7 Resultantly, the petition is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the above extent, as recorded. The rest of the award is maintained. There was no other challenge raised. 8 The Petition is accordingly partly allowed, with no order as to costs. 9 Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners is seeking stay of this order. It is rejected. [ ANOOP V. MOHTA, J ]