1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. APPEAL NO.492 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.818 OF 2006 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.158 OF 2006 IN ARBITRATION AWARD DATED 7th July, 2005 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.351 OF 2009 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. Eskay Engineers ..Respondents. .... Mr. Rajendra Raghuvanshi, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr. Viral Shukla and Mr. Samit D. Shukla i/b Shukla & Associates for the Appellant. Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.S. Phadke for the Respondent. .... CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 31st March, 2009. P.C. : 1. The Sole Arbitrator - General Manager, Telecom had made and published an award dated 7th July, 2005. This award was made 2 in furtherance to an order passed by the Bombay High Court. The objections to the award were dismissed and were overruled by the Court. The judgment of the High Court was questioned before the Supreme Court but as stated before the Court the challenge thereto was also dismissed. In other words, the award of the Arbitrator has attained finality. Chamber Summons 818 of 2006 was taken out in Execution Application No.158 of 2006 by the Respondent. This Chamber Summons was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge vide his order dated 30th September, 2008. The legality and correctness of this order is questioned by the Appellant in the present Appeal. The contention raised is that the amount of security interest which was raised by the Appellant has not been properly considered by the Learned Single Judge and further more the Chamber Summons has been disposed of despite the fact that there were calculation mistakes. 2. As far as the interest is concerned, it has been noticed in the order and is not even disputed before the Court that the Respondents are claiming interest statutorily as contemplated under 3 Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which as yet has not been claimed and raised before the Learned Single Judge. Thus, the question insofar as the interest is concerned does not arise. As far as calculation is concerned, the Learned Single Judge observed that even if the recalculation is done, it does not mean that the claimants are required to refund any amount to the Appellant. Certain calculations were corrected and calculated before the Learned Single Judge. Despite this, before dismissing the Chamber Summons, the Learned Single Judge granted liberty to the parties to apply for such calculations and keeping all contentions open for both sides. We see no reason to interfere. The Appeal is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, Notice of Motion 351 of 2009 does not survive and disposed of as such. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.