Arbitral award challenge limitation and limited court review shaped the outcome, with sales tax refund and loss of profit rejected.

Notice of filing of the arbitral award in court is required to trigger the 30-day limitation period under Article 119(b); mere knowledge of the award or a registry office report is insufficient, so the objections were not time-barred. Interference with an arbitral award remains limited where the arbitrator has considered the pleadings, evidence and contract, and the award was sustained on most claims, including final bill, extra works, labour escalation, watch and ward, material escalation, interest and costs. However, the sales tax refund claim failed because the notification condition was not met, and the separate allowance for loss of turnover or loss of profit due to prolongation was set aside for want of factual foundation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the objections to the arbitral award were barred by limitation for want of notice of filing of the award in court; (ii) whether the arbitral award suffered from any error warranting interference, including the claims for final bill, extra works, labour escalation, sales tax refund, watch and ward, material escalation, and loss of profit; and (iii) whether the award of compensation for loss of turnover due to prolongation of work could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the objections to the arbitral award were barred by limitation for want of notice of filing of the award in court.

Analysis: Article 119(b) prescribes a 30-day period to challenge an award after notice of filing of the award in court is given. Mere knowledge of the award or an office report by the Registry is not enough. On the facts, the office report did not amount to notice, and there was no material showing that the required notice of filing had been served before the objections were filed.

Conclusion: The objections were not barred by limitation and the plea of limitation failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the arbitral award suffered from any error warranting interference, including the claims for final bill, extra works, labour escalation, sales tax refund, watch and ward, material escalation, and loss of profit.

Analysis: Interference with an arbitral award is limited. If the arbitrator has considered the pleadings, evidence, and contractual terms, the Court will not reappraise the matter as on appeal. Applying that standard, the Court upheld the award on the claims for the unpaid balance of the final bill, extra works reflected in the measurement book, labour escalation, watch and ward expenses, and material escalation. The Court found no infirmity in the award of interest or costs. However, the award allowing refund of sales tax was found unsustainable because the notification condition was not satisfied, and the claim had to fail. The Court also held that the claim duplicated extra-work compensation in part where the amount had already been allowed under another head.

Conclusion: The award was sustained on most heads, but the sales tax refund was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the award of compensation for loss of turnover due to prolongation of work could be sustained.

Analysis: A claim for loss of profit arising from prolongation of work cannot succeed unless the claimant lays a factual foundation that the delayed money would have been profitably deployed elsewhere. No such evidence was available. The Court held that, in the absence of proof, the arbitrator could not award a separate sum under this head.

Conclusion: The award of compensation for loss of turnover or loss of profit was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only in part. The arbitral award was substantially maintained, but the amounts awarded towards refund of sales tax and loss of turnover due to prolongation of work were deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: A challenge to an arbitral award under Article 119(b) of the Limitation Act does not become time-barred unless notice of filing of the award in court has been duly served, and an arbitral award will not be interfered with except where it travels beyond the contract or is unsupported by evidence on the face of the record.

---