TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (8) TMI 383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt, Trivandrum in E.P. No. 109 of 1981 in O.P. (Arbitration) No. 4 of 1979. Learned Single Judge held that there was nothing wrong with the direction to warrant interference under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'Code'). Civil Appeal No. 362 of 1988 has been filed by M/s. Arya Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant') questioning correctness of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court setting aside the decree in terms of the award given by the two arbitrators appointed by the Court. 2. Though the case has a chequered history, it is not necessary to deal with the factual position in detail, as the same is almost undisputed. Claimant ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1986, a Division Bench of the High Court, as noted above set aside the award. Before this Court also the matter was taken up. Parties finally agreed to settle the dispute out of the Court, but later on requested for appointment of an arbitrator by this Court to adjudicate the dispute. By order dated 13-12-1999. Mr. Justice B.M. Thulsidas a retired Judge of the Kerala High Court was appointed as an Arbitrator, though initially another Arbitrator was appointed. As an interim measure, by order dated 16-4-1984 in civil appeal No. 2078 of 1984, it was directed that the appellant-State should deposit Rs. 5,75,500 as awarded by the Arbitrator with the registry of this Court. The claimant was permitted to withdraw the amount with the stipulation th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that it was no fault of the claimant and, therefore, it as entitled to balance amount of Rs. 99,270 together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent in 1966 till 10-1-1973 when the claimant gave notice to the State that departmental works of erection would not be taken up. The Arbitrator worked out the entitlement at Rs. 1,66,010. On the above basis total claim of the claimant came to Rs. 5,25,774. 4. Taking note of the amounts of claims to have been paid to the claimant, the Arbitrator noted as follows: (1)A sum of Rs. 2,68,550 was paid on 17-7-1979. (2)As per order dated 26-2-1982 a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 was deposited on 23-11-1982. (3)A sum of Rs. 5,00,000 was paid as per order dated 1-12-1983 in MFA No. 515/83. (4)In terms of order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pecial conditions which govern the agreement, which were not taken note of 15 per cent interest on Rs. 5,75,000 is included wrongly because it is nowhere directed that 15 per cent was to be paid by the claimant. It was only observed that in case appeal is allowed, the State would be entitled to 15 per cent. In essence, the award was characterized to be outcome of misconduct. 6. In response, learned counsel for the State submitted that award given by the arbitrator is a reasoned award and the scope for interference with the reasoned award is extremely limited. Nothing has been shown to show that the arbitrator overlooked any relevant piece of material or that the award suffered from any patent illegality. 7. Though there was some dispute a....