(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34, 37 – Arbitration – Fault in design – IS Standard – Challenge to award – Held: The claimant was required to adhere to IS Code Standard and where the standards were not provided, the recourse was to be had to international standards. In the present case, the BIS standard was available. M/s LII did not state that the design was not as per the Indian Standard Codes and trade practices. It relied upon the Burenkova Theory, which is not included in the Bureau of Indian Standards. Therefore, the claimant could not have been asked to adhere to a standard, which was not provided in the contract. (Para 29)
(B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34, 37 – Arbitration – Opinion of dissenting member – The opinion of the dissenting member cannot be treated as an award (Para 31)
(C) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34, 37 – Arbitration – Additional Work or Part of Contract – Plea the award related to Additional work of “Permeation Grouting” is not valid and that work was included in contract – Held: The learned Arbitral Tribunal held that providing the “Permeation Grouting” was not part of the Indian Standards. Nothing was brought to the notice of this Court to show that the permeation grouting is included in the Indian Standard for barrage.
Learned Arbitral Tribunal had rightly relied upon the Indian Standard and the report of the Indian expert rather than the Burenkova Theory, the validity of which is yet to be established. Therefore, no fault can be found with the reasoning of the learned Arbitral Tribunal that permeation grouting was an additional work and was not included within the scope of the work. (Para 36, 37)
(D) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34, 37 – Arbitration – Award of interest – Objection against awarding interest by arbitrator – Held: In the present case, the contract does not prohibit the award of the interest. Therefore, no error was committed by the learned Tribunal in awarding the interest. The arbitrator has the discretion to award post-award interest – Therefore, even in the absence of the mentioning of interest in the award, the claimant is entitled to 18% interest, and the learned Arbitrator cannot be faulted for awarding interest @15% per annum for the post-award interest. (Para 39, 40, 41)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2023 STPL(Web) 277 HP
[2023 HHC 12630]
H.P. Power Corporation Limited Vs. M/S Hindustan Construction Company Limited
Arb. Case No.117 of 2018-Decided on 19-10-2023.
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-STPLWeb-277-HP.pdf
