IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Review Petition No. 1340/2008 In A.O. No. 472 of 2005 O.N.G.C. Ltd. …Appellant Versus Remi Metals Gujrat Ltd. …Respondent With Review Petition No.1339/2008 In A.O. No.466 of 2005 M/s Remi Metals …Appellant Versus O.N.G.C. Ltd. …Respondent Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Heard Sri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the review petitioner/respondent M/s Remi Metals, Sri L.P. Naithani, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri M.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant/ O.N.G.C. and perused the record. 2- Learned counsel for the appellant Sri L.P. Naithani, learned senior counsel raised the argument in A.O. No. 472/2005 with regard to claim nos. 1 and 2. As far as other claims are concerned, no argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. This Court has allowed A.O. No. 472/2005 in toto. It appears to me that this Court oversighted this aspect that the appellant O.N.G.C. did not press the argument with regard to other claim nos. 3 to 7. Therefore, the judgment and order dated 14th October, 2008 passed by me is modified to the extent that the appeal (A.O. No.472/2005) filed by O.N.G.C. is 2 liable to be allowed with regard to claim nos. 1 and 2. The judgment and order passed by the District Judge, Dehradun, in Arbitration Case No. 31 of 2004 dated 19th July, 2005, is modified to the extent that the appeal with regard to claim nos. 1 and 2 is allowed, while the judgment and order dated 19th July, 2005 passed by the District Judge, Dehradun, shall remain intact with regard to claim nos. 3 to 7. As far as argument of Sri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the review petitioner, in A.O. No. 466 of 2005, is concerned, learned counsel for the review petitioner M/s Remi Metals has submitted that the District Judge has wrongly modified the amount of cost awarded by the arbitral Tribunal on the ground that the District Judge had travelled beyond the scope of powers accorded to him by virtue of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and in modifying the award as related to the issue of cost. 3- While dealing with this aspect of the matter, I clearly observed in the judgment passed by me that the District Judge has taken into account the provisions of Section 31(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and thereafter the District Judge has held that the arbitral tribunal has fixed the cost of Rs.25,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the bills submitted by the respondent to amount of Rs.53,54,398-35P. The District Judge has clearly observed that the bills did not include the expenses of the ONGC as ONGC had not filed the bills. The bills include the charges of the lawyers and Advocates to the tune of Rs.22,00,000/- and 3 Rs.6,78,000/- are shown as travelling and other expenses of the Advocates and for claimant’s representatives. Therefore, I had clearly observed that the District Judge has rightly observed that the bills did not include the expenses of the ONGC. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the judgment and order dated 14th October, 2008 passed by me. 4- Review Petition No. 1339/2008 relating to A.O. No. 466/2005 does not carry any force and is accordingly dismissed, while Review Petition No. 1340/2008 relating to A.O. No.472/2005, is partly allowed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 27-07-2010 SP