AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Mishra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of appellant and submits, clarification is necessary on submission made on behalf of respondent, recorded in order dated 17th May, 2022. He points out, submission was that there is a component of Rs.92,25,769/- in the award. Respondent has contended it is severable. He submits, such contention was in purported to confine controversy in the appeal to except the amount.
2.He refers to paragraphs 449 and 450 in the award (running page-452). He demonstrates, amount payable for work done, as claimed by respondent, contained in RA bill no.6 was for Rs.1,53,08,816/-. The bill was passed for Rs.92,25,769/- in two parts. He then refers to paragraph-685 in the award, whereby the claim was allowed subject to deduction of Rs.7,29,100/-. Turning to table ‘a.ASH DYKE’ he shows that the arbitrator made, on account of final bill payable, the remark implying nil.
It appears from the table, award was ‘for now payable amount’ of Rs.2,40,50,260/- on heads mentioned being bank guarantee encashment refund, loss of profit, retention money refund, corresponding interest and consequential amounts on fully adjusted final bill amount. Appellant will be heard on how the award suffers from ground(s) in section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with regard to aforesaid heads.
List on 20th July, 2022 for conclusion of hearing.
……………………….