{"id":237368,"date":"2002-05-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-05-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002"},"modified":"2017-01-10T09:59:24","modified_gmt":"2017-01-10T04:29:24","slug":"walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002","title":{"rendered":"Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. vs Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. on 16 May, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. vs Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. on 16 May, 2002<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2002 VAD Delhi 184, 2002 (3) ARBLR 585 Delhi, 99 (2002) DLT 316, 2002 (63) DRJ 633<\/div>\n
Author: V Jain<\/div>\n
Bench: V Jain<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 Vijender Jain, J. <\/p>\n
 1. Letter of Intent dated 31st March, 1983 was
\nissued in favor of the petitioner\/Walchand Nagar
\nIndustries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to the ‘WIL’) for
\nsupply, erection and Commissioning of a Clinkerisation
\npackage for 3000 tonnes per day at
\nrespondent\/objector’s\/Cement Corporation of India’s
\n(hereinafter referred to the ‘CCI’) Plant at Yerraguntla
\nDistt. Cuddapah Andhra Pradesh. Disputes arose between
\nthe parties and parties appointed Sh.Y.V. Chandrachud,
\nretired Chief Justice of India as the sole Arbitrator.
\nThe Sole Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 6,50,74,341\/=
\nalong with interest @ Rs. 12 per annum w.e.f. 3.1.1989
\nuntil payment. The Arbitrator made his Award on 26th
\nApril, 1995.\n<\/p>\n
 2. Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for CCI
\nhas contended that the Arbitrator has not made any
\nreference to the additional counter claim filed by CCI
\nfor Rs. 143.29 crores on account of discontinuance of the
\nwork by the will during the arbitration proceedings.
\nArbitrator during the course of arbitration proceedings
\nheld on 3rd March, 1992 made reference to the additional
\ncounter claim filed by the CCI and observed that he would
\ntake up the issue of additional counter claim at the time
\nof the hearing of the entire matter. It was contended by
\nMr. Reddy that in the award the arbitrator had not
\ndiscussed the additional counter claim of the CCI that
\nclearly demonstrates non-application of mind and error
\napparent on record. It was contended that on this ground
\nalone, the impugned Award is liable to be set aside or in
\nthe alternative be remitted back to the Arbitrator for
\nconsidering the same.\n<\/p>\n
 3. Mr. Reddy contended that non-consideration of the
\ncounter claim by the arbitrator amounts to legal
\nmis-conduct. In support of his contention, learned
\ncounsel for CCI has cited  K.V. George v. Secretary to
\nGovernment, Water & Power Deptt. Trivandrum and Anr.
\n,  Union of India v. Jain Associates and
\nAnr.<\/a> ,  Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v.\n<\/p>\n
Amritsar Gas Service and Ors. 1990 (3) SCR Suppl. 196.\n<\/p>\n
 4. Secondly, Sh. Reddy assailed the Award on the
\nground that the learned Arbitrator awarded an amount of
\nRs. 2,66,97,341\/- against CCI relying on the Valuation
\nReport of Mr. A.L. Kochar. Mr. Reddy contended that as
\nper the Valuation Report of Mr. Kochar, the value of
\nunadjusted advance allegedly paid by will to its suppliers
\nand sub contractors was assessed at Rs. 97,41,613\/-
\nwhereas the very amount which will claimed separately
\nunder its item No. 2 of annexure 1 to the statement of claim
\nfiled by will was rejected by the Arbitrator on the ground
\nthat there was no privity o contract between CCI and the
\npersons to whom will is stated to have paid such advances.
\nWhat has been contended before me by Mr. Reddy is that the
\nsaid amount of Rs. 97,41,613\/- having been denied on
\naccount of no privity of contract between CCI and the
\npersons to whom such advances were paid, award of the
\nsaid amount on the basis of the report of the Valuer
\nMr. A.L. Kochar was patently erroneous and inconsistent
\nwith its own finding and, therefore, the Arbitrator has
\ncommitted legal misconduct in awarding a sum of
\nRs. 97,41,613\/- and award be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
 5. Mr. Reddy has contended that the Arbitrator in
\nparagraph 32 of the impugned Award has clearly mentioned
\nthat Valuer Mr. A.L. Kochar was appointed for assessing
\nand valuing the finished equipment work in progress,
\nmaterial and components in the stock lying at Walchand
\nNagar and to verify certain other claims in connection
\nwith Yerraguntla project. Therefore, allowing a sum of
\nRs. 97,41,613\/- with was on account of payment made to
\nsuppliers and sub contractors was not proper and was
\nunwarranted. In support of his contention, Mr. Reddy
\nrelied upon  K.P. Poulose v. State of Kerala and Anr.<\/a>
\n,  State of Kerala v. Poulose<\/a> 1988(2)
\nArbitration Law Reporter 15,  Ishwar Singh & sons v.
\nD.D.A. 1994 (1) Arbitration Law Reporter 526,  Rajasthan
\nState Mines & Minerals Ltd. v. Eastern Engineering
\nEnterprises and Anr.<\/a> .\n<\/p>\n
 6. Mr. Reddy took objection to the award under item
\nNo. 7.1 to the claim statement of the claimant will on
\naccount of dismantling infrastructure to the extent of
\nRs. 93.32 lakhs. It was contended that said claim would
\nbe manifestly beyond the scope of the contract as it was
\nobserved by the arbitrator in para 7 of the award that
\nthe cost of overall infrastructure at site was to be
\nborne by the CCI. It was a contended that neither the
\nclaim statement nor the affidavit contained any
\nparticular with respect to the so called dismantling of
\nthe infrastructure. It was contended that even affidavit
\nof Mr. S.C. Bhagwat cannot remotely support any claim for
\ndismantling since infrastructure referred to is not
\nsomething to be dismantled by incurring cost and on that
\nscore has assailed the award of Rs. 93.32 lakhs towards
\ncost of dismantling infrastructure. He says that it
\nshows non-application of mind by the arbitrator and in
\nsupport of his contention has cited  Dandasi Sahu v.
\nState of Orissa<\/a> ,  State of Orissa v.\n<\/p>\n
Orient Paper & Industries Ltd. .\n<\/p>\n
 7. The next objection of Mr. Reddy was to the award
\nof a sum of Rs. 2 crores towards loss of profit due to
\nnon-execution of orders in given period. Mr. Reddy
\ncontended that the award does not disclose the basis on
\nwhich this figure has been arrived at. Mr. Reddy has
\ncontended that no basis has been given in the award as to
\nwhy from a claim of Rs. 4 crores which was claimed by the
\nclaimant on loss of profit, the arbitrator has awarded a
\nsum of Rs. 2 crores. Lastly, it was contended by Mr. Reddy
\nthat the unadjusted advance recoverable from will was
\nsubstantial sum of Rs. 4.87 crores which was the advance
\npaid on the will under the contract and the same remained
\nunadjusted and any amount which was found payable to WIL
\nby CCI was to be adjusted towards the said advance and
\npayment of the balance to CCI ought to have been provided
\nfor. Mr. Reddy took exception to the reasoning given by
\nthe arbitrator on the plea of will that will has not
\ndiverted the said amount for any other purpose and items
\nworth more than the amount given as unadjusted advance
\nwere manufactured by WIL, its vendors and sub-contractors
\nand advance paid by the CCI was utilised by will for
\nprocurement of services, establishing infrastructural
\nfacilities, incidental and related outlays like travel,
\noffice expenses and overheads.\n<\/p>\n
 8. Controverting the arguments of Mr. Reddy, Mr. Arun
\nMohan, learned counsel for the will argued that argument
\nof the CCI regarding award of Rs. 93.52 lakhs was not
\nbased on any evidence, is not correct as far as Award
\nunder item No. 7.3.1 is concerned. The said amount was
\ngranted by the arbitrator based on the evidence which was
\nfiled on behalf of will by Mr. V.K. Heblikar and
\nMr. Bhagwat who had deposed in their affidavits that the
\naforesaid sum of Rs. 93.52 lakhs was spent by will as
\ndismantling cost of infrastructure. It was contended by
\nMr. Arun Mohan that opportunity was given by the
\nArbitrator to cross examine the said deponents which was
\nnot availed by the CCI.\n<\/p>\n
 9. Learned counsel for will has contended that the
\narbitrator was the best judge to adjudicate upon the
\ndisputes as letter of contract was issued on 31.3.1983
\nand the project completion date was 31.7.1986. Import
\nlicense was to be obtained by the CCI but it could not
\nobtain the same till August, 1985. As per the contract
\nin October, 1985 letter of credit was to be opened and
\nopening of letter of credit was condition precedent to
\nthe fulfillment of the obligation under letter of intent.
\nAs back as 22.2.1986, will informed CCI that all the
\nactivities relating to the project has come to a stand
\nstill since CCI lacked necessary funds. On 17.3.1987 CCI
\ninformed that project was re-scheduled for commissioning
\nin October, 1989. However, in August, 1987, i.e. 2 &
\n1\/2 years after the contractual date partial LC was
\nopened. Requirement of the LC was for Rs. 22 crores . CCI
\ncould only opened partial LC for Rs. 2.75 crores and in
\nthis background the arbitrator entered upon the reference
\non 3.3.1989.\n<\/p>\n
 10. will claimed Rs. 19 crores on the ground that CCI
\nwas in breach of the contract. Mr. Arun Mohan contended
\nthat CCI in turn contended that will was in breach.
\nObjector CCI filed a counter claim of Rs. 68 crores and
\nlater on they made an additional claim of Rs. 143 crores.
\nLearned counsel for the non-objector contended that the
\ndisputes was one of pure fact and the question before the
\narbitrator was who was in breach and what was the extent
\nof loss and to whom.\n<\/p>\n
 11. Mr. Arun Mohan contended that in order to
\nunderstand the award, one cannot pick and choose one para
\nof the award as award runs into 66 pages and if one goes
\nto the layout of the award after giving the history of
\nthe matter, the award begin with the process of fact
\nfinding from para 18 and after discussing the same till
\npara 21, arbitrator returned its finding in para 22 read
\nwith para 20.34 that it was CCI who was in breach of the
\ncontract and responsible for the delay. Counsel for
\nnon-objector contended that it was wrong on the part of
\nCCI to say that the non-consideration of the additional
\ncounter claim would vitiate the award. It was contended
\nby Mr. Arun Mohan that one has to understand as to what
\nwas additional counter claim. The additional counter
\nclaim was filed on the basis of the averment made by the
\nCCI that they were ready and willing to go ahead with the
\nwork but the contractor was not working. Same was based
\non the hypothesis that failure of the contractore to
\ncontinue to irk caused CCI a loss of Rs. 143 crores. It
\nwas contended by Mr. Arun Mohan that additional counter
\nclaim was nothing but sequel to the fact finding as to
\nwho was in breach.\n<\/p>\n
 12. It was contended that the additional counter
\nclaim of the CCI related to the same items at same rates
\nwhich found part of the original counter claim. The
\nadditional counter claim was for an extended period up to
\njanuary, 1992. It was contended by Mr. Arun Mohan that
\nsince the contractual relationship between will and CCI
\nended on 7th March, 1987 as has been observed in the
\naward, claims for period from Objector, 1988 to January,
\n1992 are irrelevant and without any basis. He relied
\nupon the observation of the arbitrator in para 30 of the
\naward that after 17th March. 1987 contractual
\nrelationship between the parties came to an end and on
\nthe basis of the above observation it was contended
\nbefore me that the additional counter claim pertained for
\na period after October, 1987 to January, 1992 during
\nwhich time there was no contractual relationship between
\nWIL and CCI. It was contended by Mr. Arun Mohan that para
\n39 of the award dealt with various counter claims and in
\npara 39.6 each of the nine counter claims stood rejected.
\nTherefore, there was no need for the Arbitrator to again
\ndwell on the additional counter claim which was rejected
\nas the additional counter claim was nothing than the
\noriginal counter claim. The award was to be read in
\nentirety. In support of his contention, learned counsel
\nfor will has relied upon  J.G. Engineering v. Calcutta
\nImprovement Trust<\/a> .\n<\/p>\n
 13. Repelling the contention of Mr. Reddy, counsel for
\nWIL contended that the valuation report of Mr. A.L.
\nKochar was perfectly in order and valuation as such was
\nagreed by CCI. He has contended that Mr. Kochar was
\nappointed by the arbitrator at the instance of CCI his
\nname was also supplied by CCI. It was contended by
\nMr. Arun Mohan that there was no need for the arbitrator
\nto specifically direct CCI to take the semi-finished or
\nfinished equipment as per the report of Mr. Kochar as in
\npara 38.8 of the award it was specifically mentioned “CCI
\nwill take charge of the project on as is where is basis”.\n<\/p>\n
 14. Controverting the argument of the learned counsel
\nfor CCI that the arbitrator could not have allowed cost
\non account of dismantled infrastructure it was contended
\nthat in answer to the claim of the claimant\/WIL, there
\nwas no denial in CCI’s written statement on this claim.
\nIt was further contended that on the aforesaid claim
\nevidence was given by Mr. S.C. Bhagwat, who was not
\ncross-examined at all as also by Mr. Heblikar who also
\nmade a statement, even he was not cross-examined. It was
\ncontended that for such a large project there had to be
\nan infrastructure. The work remained idle for 69 months
\nand had to be dismantled and Rs. 1.35 lakhs per months
\nawarded by the arbitrator was only a pittance as compared
\nto what the CCI spent on its own infrastructure for that
\nkind of project.  It was also contended that what was
\nallowed by the arbitrator was not for dismantling of any
\ninfrastructure but the claim pertained to creation of
\ninfrastructure by WIL, comprising of experts, necessary
\noffice accommodation and reserving manufacturing
\nfacilities for execution of this large size one million
\nton per annum turkey project which was to be completed
\non a time bound schedule and was subject to stringent
\nliquidated damages. Learned counsel for will contended
\nthat the claim on this head was for Rs. 366.84 lakhs which
\nwas totally justified by Mr. Bhagwat in his affidavit.
\nThe arbitrator only awarded a sum of Rs. 93.32 lakhs on
\nthis score and even otherwise this finding of the
\narbitrator was a finding of fact and this Court would not
\ninterfere in the said finding.\n<\/p>\n
 15. Mr. Arun Mohan further contended that the claim
\ntowards loss of profit and award of Rs. 2 crores towards
\nloss of profit cannot be considered in any way an error
\napparent on the record of the arbitrator. It was
\ncontended that all the claims were duly supported by an
\naffidavit of Mr. S.C. Bhagwat and the amount claimed
\nunder this head was Rs. 495.63 lakhs plus interest at the
\nrate of 18% per annum from 1.1.1988 till the date of
\npayment and the loss of profit and the particular of the
\nsame was given in Annexure marked as ‘Exhibit Q’ of the
\naffidavit. It was contended before me that the project
\nwas abandoned in mid stream and contractor lost an
\nopportunity to earn profit on the contract as well as
\nearn bonus of 5% of contract value (Rs. 185 lakhs) if it
\nhad been allowed to execute the job without delay from
\nCCI.\n<\/p>\n
 16. Lastly it was contended that unadjusted advance
\namounting to Rs. 97.42 lakhs given by the arbitrator
\ncannot be faulted with as the award has its own layout
\nand its own feature and if the award is read as  whole
\nin its entirety, the sum of Rs. 97.42 lakhs awarded in
\nfavor of the claimant are correctly awarded by the
\narbitrator. The refusal to award the same in para
\n38.3(d) of the award cannot be read in isolation. It was
\ncontended that after returning finding in para 33, the
\narbitrator in para 33.1 dealt with the CCI’s contention
\nregarding adjustment of advance which is reiterated in
\nspecific words at the end of para 33.1. It was contended
\nthat even after para 38.3(d), the arbitrator in para 38.6
\nreiterated that said amount had to be paid to the
\ncontactor. It was contended that the formal award was
\ncontained in para 38.7 and there was no ambiguity of any
\nkind in the operative portion of the award and, therefore
\non that basis it was contended that the award being a
\nreasoned award, mental process of the arbitrator cannot
\nbe gone into or examined in reaching the conclusion. In
\nthe judicial mind it was the sum total that matters and
\nif there was error of expression for one small point, the
\naward cannot be set aside. He relied upon a judgment of
\nSupreme Court in  Arosan Enterprises v. UOI and Anr.<\/a>
\n in support of his submission, where
\nSupreme Court held :-\n<\/p>\n
  “The common phraseology ‘error apparent
\non the face of the record’ does not itself,
\nhowever, mean and imply closer scrutiny of
\nthe merits of documents and materials on
\nrecord. The Court as a matter of fact,
\ncannot substitute its evaluation and come to
\nthe conclusion that the arbitrator had acted
\ncontrary to the bargain between the parties.
\nIf the view of the arbitrator is a possible
\nview the award or the reasoning contained
\ntherein cannot be examined.”\n<\/p>\n
 17. I have given my careful consideration to the
\narguments advanced by learned counsel for both the
\nparties. In  Union of India v. A.L. Rallia Ram<\/a> , Supreme Court held as
\nunder :\n<\/p>\n
  “In order to make arbitration effective
\nand the awards enforceable, machinery was
\ndevised by the Arbitration Act for lending
\nthe assistance of the ordinary courts. The
\nCourt was also entrusted with the power to
\nmodify or correct the award on the ground of
\nimperfect form or clerical errors, or
\ndecision on questions not referred, which
\nwere severable from those referred. The
\nCourt had also power to remit the award when
\nit had left some matters referred
\nundetermined, or when the award was
\nindefinite, where the objection to the
\nlegality of the award was apparent on the
\nface of award. The Court might also set
\naside an award on the ground of corruption or
\nmisconduct of the arbitrator, or that a party
\nhad been guilty of fraudulent concealment or
\nwillful deception. But the Court could not
\ninterfere with the award if otherwise proper
\non the ground that the decision appeared to
\nit to be erroneous. The award of the
\narbitrator was ordinarily final and
\nconclusive, unless a contrary intention was
\ndisclosed by the agreement.”\n<\/p>\n
 18. Similarly in  Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Govt.
\nof Kerala  Court<\/a>
\nobserved as under :\n<\/p>\n
  “A Court of competent
\njurisdiction has both right and duty to
\ndecide the lis presented before it for
\nadjudication according to the best
\nunderstanding of law and facts involved
\nin the lis by the judge presiding over
\nthe Court. Such decision even if
\nerroneous either in factual
\ndetermination or application of law
\ncorrectly, is a valid one and binding
\ninter parties. It does not, therefore,
\nstand to reason that the arbitrator’s
\naward will be per se invalid and
\ninoperative for the simple reason that
\nthe arbitrator has failed to appreciate
\nthe facts and has committed error in
\nappreciating correct legal principle in
\nbasing the award. An erroneous
\ndecision of a Court of law is open to
\njudicial review by way of appeal or
\nrevision in accordance with the
\nprovisions of law. Similarly, an award
\nrendered by an arbitrator is open to
\nchallenge within the parameters of
\nseveral provisions of the Arbitration
\nAct. Since the arbitrator is a judge
\nby choice of the parties and more often
\nthan not a person with little or no
\nlegal background, the adjudication of
\ndisputes by an arbitration by way of an
\naward can be challenged only within the
\nlimited scope of several provisions of
\nthe Arbitration Act and the legislature
\nin its wisdom has limited the scope and
\nambit of challenge to an award in the
\nArbitration Act. Over the decades,
\njudicial decisions have indicated the
\nparameters of such challenge consistent
\nwith the provisions of the Arbitration
\nAct…..”\n<\/p>\n
 19. It is in these parameters I have to examine the
\nobjections filed by the objector. Broadly speaking the
\nchallenge to the award by CCI is five fold. First,
\nnon-consideration of the additional counter claim filed
\nby the CCI on 3.3.1992: second, award on account of cost
\nof dismantled infrastructure; third, claim towards loss
\nof profit and fourth, accepting the report of the
\nvaluer\/assessor, which has two parts (i) report as a
\nwhole and (ii) where it discusses award of Rs. 97,41,613\/-
\ntowards payment made by will to its sub-contractors.\n<\/p>\n
 20. Mr. Reddy took great pain in contending that as
\nthe additional counter claim was not decision by the
\narbitrator, even though the arbitrator had recorded in
\nits order dated 3.3.1992 that same will be decided at the
\ntime of making the award but in the award nothing has
\nbeen said about additional counter claim which was filed
\non 3.3.1992, therefore award be set aside. The award
\nruns into 66 pages. The arbitrator was Justice Y.V.
\nChandrachud. The award is not only a reasoned award but
\nthe same is exhaustive in all respects. up to paragraph
\n17 of the award arbitrator discused in detail the
\nrespective contentions of the parties and took up issue
\nNo. 4 which was an issue as to whether at the materia;
\ntime CCI was ready and willing to perform its obligation
\nat the time specified in the LOI particularly regarding
\nthe opening of the LC in favor of will and in favor of
\nother foreign and local suppliers and regarding obtaining
\nthe import license for imported equipments. In para 20.3
\nof the award the arbitrator returned its finding as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
 “20.3 These facts and circumstances show that
\nsupplying funds to will against the L\/C to
\nenable it to manufacture or purchase
\nequipments was a vital term of the LOI. The
\nopening of the L\/C by CCI was in the nature
\nof a pre-condition to the fulfillment by WIL
\nof its obligations under the LOI.\n<\/p>\n
 20.4 Under Clause 6 of the LOI, CCI had to
\narrange for the import license for the
\nimported equipments within 6 months of the
\ndate of acceptance of LOI by WIL. CCI opted
\nunder Clause 7.1. of the LOI to place the
\npurchase orders of foreign vendors and pay
\nthe price thereof.\n<\/p>\n
 20.5 The correspondence between the parties
\nshows that though import licenses were to be
\narranged by CCI within 6 months, no such
\narrangement was made until June, 1986 in
\nregard to supplies from a foreign supplier
\nM\/s. Hazemaag. In relation to supplies from
\nM\/s Pfeiffer, the L\/C was not opened till
\nJune, 1987. In so far as the foreign vendors
\nare concerned, CCI did not open the L\/Cs or
\npay the advance until the end of 1985 and the
\nmiddle of 1986. The L\/Cs in respect of some
\nof important foreign items were opened by CCI
\nin 1987. Thus, CCI made it impossible by its
\nconduct to enable will to commission the Plant
\nby July, 1986. The relevant letters in this
\nbehalf are dated 5.6.1984, 22.10.1984,
\n29.1.1985, 13.3.1985, 5.4.1985, 13.8.1985,
\n14.9.1985, 14.12.1985 and 21.7.1986.\n<\/p>\n
 20.6 In paragraph 11 of its written
\nsubmissions CCI has raised a new point to the
\neffect that thee was no need to open the L\/C
\nas provided for in the LOI because “the
\nparties understood that even before opening
\nthe L\/C the payments could be made for the
\nsupplies of the equipments made directly to
\nthe parties on presentation of bills”. Such
\nis not the evidence, the correspondence
\nbelies the argument and such a stand was
\ntaken for the first time in the written
\nsubmissions. In paragraph 9 of his affidavit
\n(Examination-in-chief) dated 20.5.1991, WIL’s
\nwitness Shri V.K. Hablikar, has stated that
\nCCI had to establish the L\/C one or two
\nmonths prior to 1.4.1985. The so-called
\nunderstanding between the parties which is
\nreferred in paragraph 11 of the written
\nsubmissions was not even put to the witness
\nin his cross-examination.”\n<\/p>\n
 21. Then the arbitrator after discusing in many
\nsub-paras returned the finding in following terms in
\npara 20.12 which is as under :\n<\/p>\n
  “These facts and circumstances show
\nthat will was disabled from performing its
\npart of the contract on account of the
\nfailure of CCI to perform its obligations
\nunder the contract. The financial constrains
\nwhich faced CCI constituted a stumbling block
\nin its commitment to perform its obligations
\nunder the contract.”\n<\/p>\n
 22. And after exhaustively discussing all the
\naspects of the controversy and the issues raised before
\nhim, the arbitrator returned its finding that it was CCI
\nand not will which was responsible for the delay in
\ncompleting the project on Schedule. An application was
\nfiled before the arbitrator by the CCI during the
\npendency of the arbitration proceedings the during the
\npendency of the arbitration proceedings will be directed
\nto continue to perform its obligation under the letter of
\nintent and that should be treated as a preliminary issue.
\nThe arbitrator had declined this prayer. CCI preferred
\nan appeal to the High Court, the same was dismissed.
\nThereafter, CCI filed an SLP before Supreme Court and the
\nsame was also dismissed. Arbitrator, therefore, returned
\nthe finding in para 29 that if the letter of intent
\nitself is no longer in operation in its original form and
\nif CCI treated it by its own conduct as non-existent by
\naltering a material term thereof, will cannot be asked to
\ncontinue to work under the original term of the work
\nunder LOI in existence any longer and, therefore, WIL’s
\nobligation under it have come to an end.\n<\/p>\n
 23. This observation has bearing on the objection
\nof CCI once the arbitrator held that will was under no
\nobligation to pay any amount to CCI on the basis of the
\ncounter claim, there was no question of not returning a
\nspecific finding on additional counter claim which was
\nfiled much later in 1992. As the additional counter
\nclaim of CCI related to the same item which formed part
\nof the original claims, the only difference being that
\nthe counter claim first filed by the CCI was against WIL
\nin respect of period prior to commencement of arbitration
\nproceedings and the additional claim were extended
\nversion of the counter claim from 1989 till the year
\n1992.\n<\/p>\n
 24. In para 30 the arbitrator gave a finding that
\non 17.3.1987 CCI deferred the date of completion of the
\nproject from July, 1986 to October, 1989 which was not
\nacceptable to WIL. Thus after 17th March, 1987 the
\ncontractual relationship between the parties came to an
\nend.\n<\/p>\n
 25. Once counter claim was rejected by the
\narbitrator in view of what is stated above, the
\nadditional counter claim, as a matter of fact, was also
\nrejected as the same was based on the counter claim
\nexcept for extension of a period as I have stated
\nearlier. The award was a decision of the arbitrator
\nchosen by the parties. Wrong or right decision was
\nbinding if the same was reached fairly after giving
\nadequate opportunities to the parties to place their
\ngrievances. By not specifically rejecting the additional
\ncounter affidavit it cannot be said that there has been a
\nlegal misconduct or an error which is apparent on the
\naward. The award, if read, as a whole in its entirety
\ndealing with the discussions on he counter claim filed
\ninitially by the arbitrator leaves no scope for any doubt
\nthat the additional counter claim also stands rejected by
\nthe arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
 26. In  Food Corporation of India v. Joginderpal
\nMohinderpal  Supreme Court<\/a> observed that:\n<\/p>\n
  “…..We should make the law of
\narbitration simple, less technical and more
\nresponsible to the actual realities of the
\nsituations but must be responsive to the
\ncanone of justice and fair play and make the
\narbitrator adhere to such process and norms
\nwhich will create confidence, not only by
\ndoing justice between the parties, but by
\ncreating sense that justice appears to have
\nbeen done….. It is
\nnecessary to find whether the arbitrator has
\nmisconducted himself or the proceedings
\nlegally in the sense whether the arbitrator
\nhas gone contrary to the terms of reference
\nbetween the parties or whether the arbitrator
\nhas committed any error law apparent on the
\nface of the award. It is necessary to
\nemphasis that these are grounds for setting
\naside the award but these are separate and
\ndistinct grounds. Halsbury’s Laws of England
\nVol.2, 4th Edn., para 623 reiterates that an
\narbitrator’s award may be set aside for error
\nof law appearing on the face of it. Though
\nthis jurisdiction is not to be lightly
\nexercised, the award can also be set aside
\nif, inter alia, the arbitrator has
\nmisconducted himself or the proceedings. It
\nis difficult to give an exhaustive definition
\nwhat may amount to misconduct on the part of
\nthe arbitrator. This is discussed in
\nHalsbury’s Laws of England (supra). It is
\nnot misconduct on the part of an arbitrator
\nto come to an erroneous decision, whether his
\nerror is one of fact or law, and whether or
\nnot his findings of fact are supported by
\nevidence. See the observations of Russell on
\nArbitration, 20th Edn., page 422.”\n<\/p>\n
 27. The authority of Indian Oil Corporation (supra)
\nis of no help to the case of CCI in the facts and
\ncircumstances of this case.\n<\/p>\n
 28. That brings me to the next objection of CCI
\nwith regard to award of cost of dismantled
\ninfrastructure. I do not see there is any merit in this
\nobjection. The total contract was for Rs. 37 crores
\nincluding all taxes, dues, customs etc. The tender
\ninquiry was floated on 28th August, 1981 for setting of a
\nclinkerisation unit. will submitted its tender in
\nresponse to the said inquiry on 12.8.1982. Same was
\nrevised on 14.1.1983. CCI issued a letter of intent
\ndated 31.3.1983 in favor of will for the supply, erection
\nand commissioning of a clinkerisation packages for 3000
\ntonnes per day at CCI’s plant at Yerranguntla.\n<\/p>\n
 29. Arbitration in para 5 of the award took note
\nthat out of the said amount of Rs. 37 crores, Rs. 607 lakhs
\nwas for machinery\/equipment to be manufactured by will in
\nits own Works, selected sub-contractors’ works and at the
\nsite, Rs. 1726 lakhs for machinery\/equipments to be
\nprocured by will from indigenous suppliers, Rs. 738 lakhs
\nfor imported equipment to be procured by will from foreign
\nvendors being the value according to the exchange rate
\nprevailing on 15.1.1983, and Rs. 625 lakhs for the cost of
\nengineering, designs, drawings and services such as
\nerection, commissioning, transportation, insurance and
\nstorage at site. This amount was sub-divided into Indian
\ncomponent of Rs. 517 lakhs and foreign component of Rs. 108
\nlakhs, the conversion value being as of January, 1983.\n<\/p>\n
 30. Learned counsel for CCI took the stand that as
\nthere was no material on record to show t hat any expenses
\ntowards infrastructure was incurred and contended that
\nthis part of the award was based on merely conjectures
\nand surmises. Why I have reproduced the above figures
\nfrom the award of the arbitrator is to show that the
\narbitrator was aware of the enormity of the project
\ntaking that into consideration that the work which was to
\nbe done within 40 months and the same was extended for 69
\nmonths, the work remained idle. The award of
\nRs. 1,39,000\/- per month cannot be said to be excessive by
\nthe arbitrator. In para 38.3 (i), the arbitrator has
\nreturned the finding in the following words :\n<\/p>\n
  “I allow the claim at Item No. 7.1 for
\ncost of dismantling the infrastructure in the
\nsum of Rs. 93.32 lakhs. I also allow the
\nclaim under Item No. 7.3 for cost of material
\ntesting, in the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs. I,
\nhowever, disallow the claim under Item No. 7.2
\nin the sum of Rs. 38.99 lakhs for expenses
\nincurred by will for “traveling for project”.
\nThus CCI will pay to will a sum of Rs. 96.32
\nlakhs for claims under Item Nos. 7.1 and 7.3.”\n<\/p>\n
 31. This finding of allowing a sum of Rs. 96.32
\nlakhs is taking into consideration the whole project and
\ntaking into consideration that in order to start the work
\nof this magnitude the infrastructure is to be created and
\noffice accommodation, manufacturing facilities were
\ncreated and therefore, it cannot be said that the award
\nof said amount is without any basis. I find force in the
\narguments of Mr. Arun Mohan that Mr. Bhagwat and
\nMr. Heblikar who have given evidence on this claim were
\nnot cross-examined by the CCI. In any event of the
\nmatter this finding of the arbitrator as a matter of fact
\nis a finding of fact. Supreme Court in Sudarsan Trading
\nCo.’s case (supra) observed as follows :\n<\/p>\n
  “….. By and large the Courts have
\ndisfavored interference with arbitration
\naward on account of error of law and fact on
\nthe score of misappreciation and misreading
\nof the materials on record and have shown
\ndefinite inclination to preserve the award as
\nfar as possible. As reference to arbitration
\nof disputes in commercial and other
\ntransactions involving substantial amount has
\nincreased in recent times, the Courts were
\nimpelled to have fresh look on the ambit of
\nchallenge to an award by the arbitrator so
\nthat the award does not get undesirable
\nimmunity. In recent times, error in law and
\nfact in basing an award has not been given
\nthe wide immunity as enjoyed earlier, by
\nexpanding the import and implication of
\n“legal misconduct” of an arbitrator so that
\naward by he arbitration does not perpetrate
\ngross miscarriage of justice and the same is
\nnot reduced to mockery of a fair decision of
\nthe lis between the parties to arbitration.
\nPrecisely for the aforesaid reasons, the
\nerroneous application of law constituting the
\nvery basis of the award the improper and
\nincorrect findings of fact, which without
\ncloser and intrinsic scrutiny, are
\ndemonstrable on the fact of the materials on
\nrecord have been held, very rightly, as legal
\nmisconduct rendering the award as invalid.
\nIt is necessary, however, to put a note of
\ncaution that in the anxiety to render justice
\nto the party to arbitration, the Court should
\nnot reappraise the evidences intrinsically
\nwith a close scrutiny for finding out that
\nthe conclusion drawn from some facts, by the
\narbitrator is, according to the understanding
\nof the Court, erroneous. Such exercise of
\npower which can be exercised by an appellate
\nCourt with power to reverse the finding of
\nfact, is alien to the scope and ambit of
\nchallenge of an award under the Arbitration
\nAct…..”\n<\/p>\n
 32. From the perusal of the discussions in the
\naward, the award of Rs. 1.39 lakhs per month under this
\nclaim, keeping in view the time frame in which the
\nproject was to be completed, the volume of the contract
\nand the various factors which I have detailed above, it
\ncannot be said that the decision of the arbitrator was
\nbased on no evidence and, therefore, constituted legal
\nmisconduct or was based on an error which was apparent on
\nthe record.\n<\/p>\n
 33. That takes me to the next objection, i.e.
\naward of Rs. 2 crores towards los of profit in favor of
\nWIL. Reading the award in its entirety and keeping the
\nfact into consideration that the claim of will under this
\nheading was Rs. 499.66 lakhs plus interest at the rate of
\n18% p.a. from 1.1.1988 till the date of payment and
\naffidavit of Mr. Bhagwat having been filed giving
\njustification for the claim under loss of profit and
\nspecific finding by the arbitrator that it was CCI who
\nwas responsible for not performing its obligation under
\nthe contract s it was always cash starved and clear
\nfinding of the arbitrator that non-objector\/WIL was to be
\ncompensated on loss of profit as it lost an opportunity
\nto earn profit on the project. The learned arbitrator in
\npara 38.3(1) held as under :\n<\/p>\n
  “The claim under Item No. 10 is in the
\nsum of Rs. 400 lakhs for “Loss of profit due
\nto non-execution of orders in given period”.
\nConsidering the oral and documentary evidence
\non the record, this claim in the sum of Rs. 4
\ncrores seems to me to be exaggerated. I
\nallow a sum of Rs. 2 crores only for this
\nclaim. Accordingly, I direct that CCI will
\npay to will a sum of Rs. 2 crores for the claim
\nunder item No. 10.”\n<\/p>\n
 34. The arbitrator in the instance case has come to
\na conclusion on a closer scrutiny of the evidence in the
\nmatter and repraisal of evidence by the Court is not
\npermissible in proceedings under Section 30 of the
\nArbitration Act. The award has to be considered in its
\nentirety and on its proper appreciation of the intent and
\npurport it would be seen the arbitrator as a best judge
\nawarded the sum of Rs. 2 crores after taking into
\nconsideration all the material facts before him and this
\nCourt merely on the ipse dixit of any party would not
\nlike to lightly interfere in the said finding of the
\nlearned arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
 35. In  Trustees of the Port of Madras v.
\nEngineering Construction Corpn. Ltd.,<\/a> ,
\nCourt observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
  “The proposition that emerges from the
\nabove decisions is this; in the case of a
\nreasoned award, the Court can interfere if
\nthe award is based upon a proposition of law
\nwhich is unsound in law. The erroneous
\nproposition of law must be established to
\nhave vitiated the decision. The error of law
\nmust appear from the award itself or from any
\ndocument or note incorporated in it or
\nappended to it. It is not permissible to
\ntravel beyond and consider material not
\nincorporated in or appended to the award.”\n<\/p>\n
 36. The next objection of Mr. Reddy is award of a
\nsum of Rs. 2,66,97,341\/- based on the report of Mr. Kochar.
\nMr. Reddy has contended that the same ought not to have
\nbeen accepted as learned arbitrator did not allow the
\nclaim of Rs. 97,41,613\/- which was the value of unadjusted
\nadvances paid by will to its supplier and sub-contractors
\nwas rejected by the arbitrator on the ground that there
\nwas no privity of contract between CCI and the persons
\nwhom will is stated to have paid such advances. This
\nargument I will deal in the last as as last objection.\n<\/p>\n
 37. Report of Mr. A.L. Kochar, valuer was also
\nobjected by the learned counsel for the CCI on the ground
\nthat same could not have been accepted by the arbitrator
\nwithout proper scrutiny. How Mr. Kochar was appointed by
\nthe arbitrator? Mr. Kochar was appointed by the
\narbitrator with the consent of the parties and during the
\ncourse of arguments before this Court it was conceded by
\nMr. Reddy that name of Mr. Kochar was given by the CCI to
\nthe arbitrator. He was appointed as valuer as CCI had
\nrefuted valuation as given by will on the following
\nclaims:\n<\/p>\n
  “(a) Claim relating to
\nfinished equipments lying at
\nWalchandnagar as mentioned in
\nthe Affidavit of Shri S.C.\n<\/p>\n
Bhagwat and as further
\nclarified in the affidavits of
\nShri D.V. Vairagkar and Shri
\nD.K. Nagarseth…\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     Rs. 59,70,000.\n<\/p>\n
(b) Claim relating to Work-\n<\/p>\n
in-Progress at Walchandnagar
\nas mentioned in Exhibit C of
\nShri Bhagwat’s affidavit and
\nas further clarified in the
\naffidavit of Shri D.K.\n<\/p>\n
Nagarseth.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      Rs. 1,14,01,379.\n<\/p>\n
(c) Claim relating to material
\nand components lying in stock
\nat Walchandnagar as mentioned
\nin Shri S.C. Bhagwat’s
\naffidavit.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       Rs. 39,23,718.\n<\/p>\n
(d) Claim relating to
\nunadjusted advances paid by
\nWIL to sub-suppliers and sub-\n<\/p>\n
contractors as mentioned in
\nExhibit H of Shri Bhagwat’s
\naffidavit.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                        Rs. 97,41,613.\n<\/p>\n
(e) Claim relating to Storage,
\nHandling and Insurance charges
\nas mentioned in Exhibit I of
\nShri Bhagwat’s affidavit.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                         Rs. 31,94,264.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                         ————-\n<\/p>\n
                                    TOTAL:                               Rs. 3,42,30,974.\n                                                                         =============\"\n\n \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
 38. In support of the aforesaid claim, will has also
\nfiled the affidavits of Mr. S.C. Bhagwat and affidavit of
\nMr. D.V. Vairagkar and Mr. D.K. Nagarseth. CCI disputed
\nthe quantum of work as mentioned in Ex.C of Mr. Bhagwat’s
\naffidavit, claim relating to material and components
\nlying in stock at Walchandnagar as mentioned in
\nMr. Bhagwat’s affidavit and claim relating to unadjusted
\nadvances paid by will to sub-suppliers and sub-
\ncontractors as mentioned in Ex. H of Mr. Bhagwat’s
\naffidavit and claim relating to storage, handling and
\ninsurance changes as mentioned in Ex.I of Mr. Bhagwat’s
\naffidavit.\n<\/p>\n
 39. CCI did not cross-examine Mr. Vairagkar and
\nMr. Nagarseth but asked for appointment of an independent
\nassessor. In para 15 of the award the learned arbitrator
\nhas recorded that when the witnesses were offered for
\ncross-examination the counsel for the CCI stated that CCI
\ncannot cross-examine the witnesses unless they had an
\nopportunity to verify those facts which are stated by the
\nwitnesses in their affidavits. Therefore, after having
\nagreed for appointment of Mr. Kochar in para 32.2 the
\narbitrator has recorded that Mr. Kochar camped at
\nWalchandnagar for about 12 days, 5 officers of the WIL
\nand 3 officers of CCI were present at the site along with
\nMr. Kochar when he made verification and assessment. Then
\nin para 32.4. arbitrator again recorded that during the
\ncourse of hearing held at Delhi on 20.8.1994, counsel for
\nboth the parties stated that they accept the report of
\nMr. Kochar, however, with the rider that the advance given
\nby CCI be adjusted. On that the arbitrator has recorded
\nits finding in the award that that cannot be done. Out
\nof the aforesaid amount as claimed by will amounting to
\nRs. 3,42,30,974\/- for claims (a) to (e), Mr. Kochar has
\nassessed the value of the items from (a) to (e) as
\nfollows : <\/p>\n
\n\n \n  \"(a) For claim mentioned as\n (a) above    ... Rs. 48,08,830\n\n(b) For claim mentioned as\n (b) above      ... Rs. 80,04,100\n\n(c) For claim mentioned as\n (c) above    ... Rs. 38,62,504\n\n(d) For claim mentioned as\n (d) above    ... Rs. 97,41,613\n\n(e) For claim mentioned as\n (e) above    ... Rs. 02,80,294\n\n          -------------\n   Total :      Rs. 2,66,97,341\n         =============\"\n\n \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
 40. Therefore, there is no merit in the objections
\nof CCI that the report of the valuer\/assessor was only to
\nlend assistance to the parties and the report of the
\nassessor\/valuer was not to be accepted without scrutiny.
\nThere can be no end to litigation. If I agree with the
\nsubmission of learned counsel for CCI that in view of the
\nobjections filed by CCI to the report of the valuer,
\nreport was not a final report on valuation. There is no
\nforce in the arguments of objector that arbitrator has
\nnot considered the objection of CCI. The argument of the
\nobjector that report of Mr. Kochar was accepted on the
\nerroneous premises that the report was to be accepted
\nwithout a demur is without merit. The arbitrator was
\nconscious of the claims of both the parties. After
\ntaking into consideration the rival contentions,
\narbitrator recorded in para 32.5 of the award that both
\nthe parties have filed further written submissions in
\nrespect of the matters relating to or arising out of
\nMr. Kochar’s report. It has also taken into consideration
\nthat will has filed written submissions dated 6.7.1994 and
\nhas claimed escalation by way of price variation and
\ninterest on the valuation made by Mr. Kochar and in para
\n32.4 it has been observed by the arbitrator that CCI has
\naccepted the report with the rider that advance amount
\ngiven by the CCI to will be set off against the value
\nassessed by Mr. Kochar which found mention in para 32.6 of
\nthe award. But how the arbitrator has recorded its
\nfinding? Para 33 is reproduced below :\n<\/p>\n
  “33. Having considered the submissions made
\nby the parties as regards Mr. Kochar’s report
\nand having taken into account all the
\nrelevant aspect of the matter into
\nconsideration, including CCI’s contention
\nregarding non-inspection of the equipment and
\ncomponent, I am of the opinion that Shri
\nKochar has arrived at an acceptable value
\napproximating to the realities of the
\nsituation, as best as is possible in the
\ncircumstances of the case. CCI’s chronic
\nfailure to inspect equipment was the result
\nof its lack of finances. To inspect was to
\npay. And so, CCI was driven to postpone the
\nevil day.”\n<\/p>\n
 41. In para 33.1 again the arbitrator has rejected
\nthe rider of the CCI that the value determined by
\nMr. Kochar should be adjusted against the advance of
\nRs. 4.67 crores given by the CCI to WIL. In said
\nparagraph the arbitrator has returned a reasoned finding.
\nPara 33.1 is to the following effect :\n<\/p>\n
  “The submission of CCI’s learned
\ncounsel that the value determined by Shri
\nKochar should be adjusted against the advance
\nof Rs. 4.67 crores given by CCI to will cannot
\nbe accepted. The amount advanced by CCI to
\nWIL was used by will for purpose of the
\ninstant project. It was not diverted by WIL
\nto any other purposes, as contended by CCI.
\nWIL, its vendors and sub-contractors had
\nmanufactured items worth much more than
\nRs. 4.87 crores. Besides, the advance paid by
\nCCI was utilised by will for procurement of
\nservices, establishing infrastructural
\nfacilities, incidental and related outlays
\nlike, travel, office expenses and overheads.
\nIn addition, expenses on several other counts
\nmust have gone up involving will in a larger
\ncommitment on account of the delays caused by
\nCCI. That is why, the valuation made by Shri
\nKochar cannot be adjusted against the advance
\nof Rs. 4.87 crores paid by CCI to WIL.”\n<\/p>\n
 42. Therefore, K.P. Poulose v. State of Kerala’s
\ncase (supra) cited by learned counsel for CCI that the
\narbitrator has committed a legal misconduct is not
\napplicable to this case.\n<\/p>\n
 43. Court cannot interfere with the award if
\notherwise proper on the ground that the decision appeared
\nto be erroneous. The award of the arbitrator was final
\nand conclusive. Law is well settled. It is not the case
\nthat the arbitrator has not considered the rider of the
\nCCI or the objection of the CCI. After considering the
\nsame he has formed an opinion. This court cannot
\nsubstitute its opinion for that of the arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
 44. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the
\ncounsel for CCI that the arbitrator has made an award
\nwhich is contrary to the terms of reference.\n<\/p>\n
 45. Let me now deal with the last objection of
\nMr. Reddy regarding grant of Rs. 97,41,613\/- towards
\nunadjusted advance paid by will to its sub-suppliers and
\nsub-contractors. Mr. Reddy contended that will had claimed
\nunder Item No. 2 of Annexure I under same head which was
\nrejected by the arbitrator on the ground that there was
\nno privity of contract between CCI and the persons to
\nwhom will was stated to have paid such advances. It was
\ncontended that said amount of Rs. 97,41,613\/- having been
\ndenied to will on account of non-privity of contract
\nbetween CCI and the persons to whom such advance were
\npaid but award of the said amount on the basis of the
\nreport of Mr. A.L. Kochar whereby the arbitrator has
\nawarded a total amount of Rs. 2,66,97,341\/- was patently
\nerroneous and inconsistent with the finding of the
\narbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
 46. Mr. Arun Mohan had argued that if the award is
\nread as a whole, at one place in paragraph 32.1 of the
\naward, the arbitrator has discussed all the claims and in
\npara 32.3 has assessed the value of the items based on
\nthe valuer’s report at Rs. 2,66,97,341\/- and had recorded
\nin para 38.3(d) in which the arbitrator has stated that
\nhe was not accepting the claim as there was no privity of
\ncontract between CCI and the persons to who will had
\nstated to have paid the advances, same could not be read
\nin isolation. Mr. Arun Mohan took great pain in
\nexplaining that the award of the arbitrator has to be
\nread in para 38.6 in which the arbitrator has held in the
\nfollowing word :\n<\/p>\n
  “38.6 The result of the aforesaid discussion,
\nin regard to monetary claims made by WIL, is
\nthat it will be entitled to receive the
\nfollowing amounts from CCI:- <\/p>\n
 a) Under the report of Shri
\nKochar as held in para 34
\nabove …    Rs. 2,66,97,314.\n<\/p>\n
b) Under the ten sub-items
\nof Item No. 1 as held in para
\n38.3(e) above           Rs. 87,45,000.\n<\/p>\n
c) Under the two sub-items
\nof Item No. 7 as held in
\npara 38.3(i) above   Rs. 96,32,000.\n<\/p>\n
d) Under claim No. 10 as
\nheld in para 38.3(1) above  Rs. 2,00,00,000.\n<\/p>\n
   ————–\n<\/p>\n
  Total :         Rs. 6,50,74,341\n   ==============\"\n\n  \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
 47. In para 38.7 the arbitrator has directed that
\nthe aforesaid amount be paid with interest at 12% per
\nannum with effect from 3.1.1989 until payment as the
\narbitrator has entered upon the reference on 3.1.1989.\n<\/p>\n
 48. I unable to persuade myself with the contention
\nof Mr. Arun Mohan. As a matter of fact, arbitrator had
\nreturned finding in para 38.3.(d) that the amount of
\nRs. 97,41,613\/- cannot be awarded to the will as there was
\nno privity of contract between CCI and sub-suppliers and
\nsub-contractors to whom will has paid the amount, award of
\nthe same amount subsequently was an error. There is an
\nerror to that extent on the face of the record. I hold
\nso. However, the award of the said amount of
\nRs. 97,41,613\/-, is severable from the rest of the award,
\nI modify the award to that extent. The result is that
\naward of the arbitrator is modified instead of an amount
\nof Rs. 6,50,74,341\/-, will shall be entitled to an amount
\nof Rs. 5,53,32,728\/- (Rs. 6,50,74,341\/- minus
\nRs. 97,41,613\/-). There is no merit in other objections
\nof CCI. The same are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
 49. Award of the arbitrator is made rule of the
\nCourt as modified above. A decree in terms thereof is
\npassed. will shall be entitled to interest at the rate of
\n12% per annum from the date of decree till realisation.\n<\/p>\n
 50. Petition stands disposed of. Pending
\napplications also stand disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. vs Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. on 16 May, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 VAD Delhi 184, 2002 (3) ARBLR 585 Delhi, 99 (2002) DLT 316, 2002 (63) DRJ 633 Author: V Jain Bench: V Jain JUDGMENT Vijender Jain, J. 1. Letter of Intent dated 31st March, 1983 was […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-237368","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWalchand Nagar Industries Ltd. vs Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. on 16 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. vs Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. on 16 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-10T04:29:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"40 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. vs Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. on 16 May, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-10T04:29:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002\"},\"wordCount\":7997,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002\",\"name\":\"Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. vs Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. on 16 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-10T04:29:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. vs Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. on 16 May, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. vs Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. on 16 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. vs Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. on 16 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-10T04:29:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"40 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. vs Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. on 16 May, 2002","datePublished":"2002-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-10T04:29:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002"},"wordCount":7997,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002","name":"Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. vs Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. on 16 May, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-10T04:29:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/walchand-nagar-industries-ltd-vs-cement-corpn-of-india-ltd-on-16-may-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. vs Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. on 16 May, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237368","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=237368"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237368\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237368"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237368"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237368"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}