C D.-I (a) Continuation Sheet Sr. Mo. Date Orders Present: Ms. Geetanjali Mohan for the Appellanlt. + FAQ (OS) N0.187/2QQ6 & CM Nos.4952-54/2dQ6 * ; The Union of India (hereinafter referred t6 as the t t 'appeiiant') has fiied this appeai aggrieved by an order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2005 by which its dbjections ^ - under Section 34(2)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciiidtion Act, I i ' f 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') havd been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon Clauses 4.1, 7.2, 22.5 and 3.3 of the contract betwedn the parties has contended that the Arbitral award dated 16.8.^005 is contrary to the terms of the contract between the partie^ contained in the above clauses. Broadly speaking, the appellant had cfiallenged 5 i the arbitral award in respect of four claims-preferred by the respondent and they are claim Nos.1,2,8 and 91. J We have gone through the arbitral award as well as the impugned order of the learned Single Judge by which objections of the appellant against the said Award have been dismissed. ? t On going through the same, we find that the learnpd Single Judge has given cogent reasons in rejecting the objections of the : '} FAO(OS) No.187/2006 | Page Nd.l of 3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signing Date:14.02.2024 14:43 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified D.-l (a) Continuation Sheet sr. No Date Orders T I ©ISO ^ .OR; .'iS shall be relevant to the note that the arbitral awarii against !. S • which objections were filed by the appellant was gi|/en by a I I Tribunal of three Arbitrators including theS nominee of the I ^ ^ S appellant and that the said Award is a unanlr|ious Award. The Arbitrators are technical people and havd considered the I • ramifications at site as also the various obllgeltions and counter j j obligations of the parties under the contract, j I I i i I Learned counsel for the appellanti relyingl upon a i I ? I judgment of a Division Bench of the Gauhki High f Court in I I I > Arbitration Appeal No.4/2001 {Union of India v. M^ior V.P. Ninhawan (Retd.) and another) has contended [that the i f Arbitrator had no power to grant interest, it wds contended that 5 t the facts of the case decided by the Gauhati jHigh Coilrt in the 5 ? aforementioned case resemble with the facis of the present I I i I p case. f i i I We have considered the said judgrpnent and, in our f I I 5 View, the above judgment of the Gauhati ifigh CoL|rt is not applicable to the facts of the present case and the saicj decision I ? has been rightly distinguished by the learned dingle Judge in the I i impugned order. S i s ^ I I FAO(OS) No.187/2006 page Noi2 of 3 li cSJ-idl ? Cii'l At j/tH'O/j.c: H.C.D.-I (a*) Gohtinuation Sheet Sr. No. Date o Orders In view of the above, we hardly find any infirnnity or illegality in the impugned order calling for our interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. VIJEND^^^N, J S.N. AGGARWAL, J APRIL 03, 2006 vk FAO(OS) No.187/2006 Page No.3 of 3