JUDGMENT
J.K. Mehra, J.
(1) This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condemnation of delay in filing the objections to the award under Sections 30 and 32 of Indian Arbitration Act. I have perused the application. The application by itself is lacking in the facts justifying or showing sufficient cause for condensation of delay. However, an affidavit was filed subsequently by the Chief Engineer, Mr. S.P. Gupta wherein further details were furnished. Keeping the facts stated therein in view, I consider it to be in the interest of justice to allow this application. Accordingly, 1.A.2852/89 is allowed and the objections are taken on record. I.A. stands disposed of.
(2) These are objections to the award dated 12.11.1987 of Mr. G.R. Hingorani, the sole Arbitrator. The earlier objections, being 1.A.No. 1589/89 are filed on behalf of the claimant-petitioner while the subsequent one, being I.A.2851 /89 is filed by the respondents.
(3) I have perused the said objection petitions, and the objections filed on behalf of the claimant, i.e., I.A.No. 1589/89. The main objections raised by the petitioner are to the award relating to the claims No. 3, 4 and 5 of the award.
(4) Claim No. 3 I have perused the award. It is pointed out on behalf of the claimants that the Arbitrator has ignored altogether the evidence which has been placed on record, i.e., Exhibits C-42 and C-43. A perusal of the award shows that the Arbitrator has looked into both these documents and has not accepted the proof of delivery of Exhibit C-42, while with regard to Exhibit C-43, he has returned a finding that this letter cannot be deemed to be a notice for damages under the provisions of Indian Contract Act, as it deals mainly with the allotment of cement vis-a-vis other contrators. Although the reason given by the Arbitrator for rejecting this claim is very brief and no detailed discussion or reasons are given, it is apparent that the Arbitrator had given due consideration to the material before him and thereafter had come to his conclusion. According to the construction placed on this document by the Arbitrator and other material before him, he came to the conclusion that no evidence regarding extent of increase in the prices after 3.3.1982 had been placed before him. No specific amounts or the rates of increase appear to have been placed before the Arbitrator. It also cannot be said that the view expressed by the Arbitrator is not a possible view. The Court cannot place its own constructions on the documents or supplement the reasons. The Court is not to interfere with the award on the ground of sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence or reasons furnished nor incorrect conclusions if the view taken is a plausible view, nor is the Court required to sit as a Court of Appeal. A reference be made to the cases of Dda v. Alka Ram, , Food Corporation of India v. Joginder pal Mohinderpal and Another, reported as 1989 (2) Jt 89 and M./s. Hindustan Tea Co. v. M/s. K. Sashikant & Co. and Another, . I do not find the findings of the Arbitrator on this claim suffering from any perversity or in any manner amounting to misconduct. As such, this objection is rejected.
(5) Claim No. 4 I am unable to appreciate the objections, raised to claim No. 4 as a whole as I find that the findings are based on the material before the Arbitrator and the same cannot be faulted on any of the permissible grounds. Objections to this claim are also rejected. Counsel has also not been able to show any infirmity in the award on this ground.
(6) Claim No. 5 The Arbitrator has accepted that under this claim, the contractor had succeeded in proving his claim only to the extent of a lumpsum payment of Rs. 500.00 p.m. from 1.5.1983 to 18.10.1984, but has still not awarded this claim on the ground that this was not raised during the currency of agreement. The objection to claim No. 5 appears to be well founded because the question of the contractor raising a claim during the currency of the agreement could not arise simply for the reason because this claim, being the claim for expenses on staff, which the contractor had to maintain up to the time the respondents delivered possession to allottees which was an expense incurred after the term of contract, could be made only after the possession had been handed over. I am surprised as to why the Arbitrator having already accepted the evidence of the details of a lumpsum amount of Rs. 500 p.m. from 1.5.1983 up to 18.10.1984 did not award anything to the contractor on this account. The award is perverse. Accordingly, this part of the award is set aside,
(7) I.A.2851/89 The respondents have raised objections, mainly to claim No. 1 (b) wherein the Arbitrator has granted a total sum of Rs. 41.994.00 . It is pointed out before me that the amount of deductions inclusive of enhancement amounted to Rs. 26,370/ – and that the Arbitrator has committed an error, which is apparent on the face of the record by adding to this amount 59.25% enhancement. This fact is conceded by the claimants. This being only an error of calculation, can be rectified by the Court. Accordingly, I modify this part of the award to read as Rs. 26,370 .00 in place of Rs. 41,994/ -. Accordingly, there will be corresponding reduction in para-7 at p-3 of the award, i.e., in place of Rs. 41.994.00 , the amount of Rs. 26,370.00 will be substituted, which will result in reduction in the total sum, which will read Rs. 59,528.00 in place of Rs. 74.152.00 . Ordered accordingly.
(8) The other objection mainly hammered by Counsel for the respondents is that in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abu Datta’s case, , the Arbitrator was not competent to award the interest from the date the arbitration proceedings were set in motion by giving notice. That view of the Supreme Court stands modified/clarified by the subsequent judgments in State of Orissa v. B.N. Aggai-wala, 1992 (Supplement) Jt 552 and Secretary, irrigation Department, Government of Orissa v. G.C. Roy, . In the light thereof, I find no merit in this objection and the same is rejected. The award except for the modifications in award on claim No. I, mentioned above and the quashing of findings on claim No. 5 is accepted and is made Rule of the Court. Let a decree be drawn up in terms of the award as modified hereinabove. The award shall form a part of the decree. The claimants shall also be entitled to future interest from the date hereof till the date of payment at the same rate at which the Arbitrator has awarded. 1.As. and suit stand disposed of,