JUDGMENT
Jaspal Singh, J.
(1) M/S. Kapoor Bros, are not satisfied with the award made and consequently have filed the objections.
(2) The learned Counsel for the objectors has sought the setting aside of the award on three grounds. The first objection is that the award displays non-application of mind and interpolations have been made unauthorisedly. The second objection is that the Award was actually made and published on October 10, 1984 but has been pre-dated showing the date of publication as september 26,1984. Lastly, the Arbitrators had received evidence at the back of the objector.
(3) As regards the first objection, my attention has been drawn to the Award and more particularly to Contractor’s Claim No. 1 and Contractor’s Claim No. 4. It is argued that as under Contractor’s Claim No. 1 the Award is “Nil”, therefore, under Contractor’s Claim No. 4 the Railways could not be directed to pay interest @ 8% per annum on the Awarded amount. In other words, the contention is that since no amount had been awarded in favor of the Contractor under claim No. 1, therefore, award of interest shows non-application of mind. It is further contended that even a cursory look at the original Award would go to show that as against Contractor’s Claim No. 1, some amount had been Awarded but the amount so typed had been later on erased and substituted by the word “Nil”. This according to him, would go to show that the Arbitrators had made unauthorised interpolations.
(4) Undoubtedly, if the original Award is looked into ‘it would go to show that as against Contractor’s Claim No. 1 some amount was originally typed but later on erased. But then one of the Arbitrators Mr. Gian Sagar who was summoned in Court and examined on oath had made it absolutely clear that as against Contractor’s Claim No. 1, no amount had actually been Awarded. In other words, it can be said that the amount mentioned against that item had been typed incorrectly and it was for this reason that it was erased. The copy supplied to the objector goes to show that no amount of money had been typed against Contractor’s Claim No. 1. This lends support to the assertion that the figures earlier shown had been typed incorrectly.
(5) It is true that as against Contractor’s Claim No. 4, the railways have been directed to pay interest on the amount awarded at 8% per annum. The argument of the learned Counsel for the objector that since no amount had been Awarded as against Contractor’s Claim No. 1, there could not be any order for payment of interest, meets its Waterloo if we look into the statement of Mr. Gian Sagar which was recorded in Court and to which reference has already been made by me above. Mr. Gian Sagar has made it clear that the amount of interest which was awarded relates to Contractor’s Claim No. 2 which related to refund of bank guarantees furnished in the form of security deposit. In view of this explanation it cannot be said that there is non-application of mind or that the amount Awarded as interest relates to Contractor’s Claim No. 1.
(6) Coming to the second objection, there is no positive proof to lend support to the contention of the objector that the Award was actually published on October 10, 1984. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the objector that one of the Arbitrators namely, Mr.P.K. Benerjee had left for Calcutta on 26th September, 1984 at 7.50 a.m. and that it was at Calcutta that he had signed the Award brought to him by an official of the railways. The log book and the record pertaining to the stay of Mr. P. K. Banerjee in the Railway Rest House would go to show that Mr. Banerjee was very much in Delhi on 26th September, 1984 and had actually left the Rest House on 27th September, 1984 at around 6.30 a.m. Thus, it cannot be said that Mr. Banerjee was not in Delhi on 26th September, 1984. Even otherwise, no official of the railways has been examined to substantiate the allegations of the objector. Even Mr. Gian Sagar who was examined in Court was not put any question with regard to Mr. Banerjee having signed the Award in Calcutta on 5th October, 1984. For the reasons recorded above, I feel that there is no substance in the second objection as well.
(7) Coming to the last objection, the perusal of the objection petition would go to show that it does not notify the documents which had allegedly been received by the Arbitrators at the back of the objector. The respondents were fully justified under the circumstances in raising an objection in their reply that the objection was vague. Those documents have not been pointed out even now. In any case, there is an undertaking in the record of the Arbitrators which goes to show that full and complete opportunity had been granted to both the sides and to their entire satisfaction. That undertaking runs as follows:- “WE both the parties do hereby declare that we have been given all the opportunity to represent our respective cases and have produced whatever we had in our possession and argued the case. We close the case and request the learned Arbitrators to proceed further to make and publish the Award.”
This undertaking clearly belies the objection. In short, I find no substance in the objections raised by M/s.Kapoor Bros. The objection petition is consequently dismissed. The Award is made the Rule of the Court and decree is passed in terms thereof.