Petitioner challenged an Arbitral Award under Section 34, arguing failure to consider specific claims and non-grant of interest. The Court found the Award considered cost escalation and held no clawback was needed.
The Original Petition is dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.12.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN Original Petition No.71 of 2012
D.Karthikeya ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Southern Railway,
Chennai – 600 003.
Rep. by the Presiding Officer,
(Arbitration Tribunal).
2.Kannan,
Deputy Chief Engineer,
Southern Railway, Construction,
Canannore.
3.S.Selvadurai,
General Manager,
RCII/MAS,
Southern Railway.
4.K.Rajkumar,
Senior Divisional Engineer,
Co-ordination/TPCI,
Southern Railway.
5.T.Nesamani, Deputy Financial Accountant, And Chief Accounts Officer/W/PFR, Southern Railway ...Respondents
Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to set aside the Award dated 16.05.2011 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in the Arbitration Proceedings in relation to the Agreement No.175/CN/2002, dated 16.05.2002.
2
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Raghavan For 1st Respondent : Mr.P.T.Ramkumar
O R D E R
This Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the Award dated 16.05.2011 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in the Arbitration proceedings in relation to Agreement No.175/CN/2002, dated 16.05.2002.
15.03.2002 but, it actually continued till 2004, resulting in a delay of more
than two years. During the interregnum, the currency of the Agreement was extended several times and finally till 13.04.2004.
3
and the second respondent and therefore, the petitioner approached the General Manager, Southern Railways seeking for constitution of a Arbitral Tribunal to arbitrate the disputes and claims made by the petitioner. The General Manager, Southern Railways accepted the request of the petitioner and a Arbitral Tribunal was set up to arbitrate the claims of the petitioner.
with respect to claim No.8 and rejected the rest of the claims.
no.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner, the Arbitrator should have answered the other claims, that includes Idling of Labour, Establishment and overhead charges, Idling of Machinery, etc. in favour of the Respondents/Southern Railway.
all issues have been considered while granting relief in claim No.1 with regard
4
to cost escalation. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has done extra work with the consent of the respondents/Southern Railways, for which he has been paid. Whether cost escalation includes waste of labour or only Idling of Machinery, idling of labour etc., needs to be considered, but, in the present
case on hand, it cannot be done so, as there is no challenge to that effect.
“Where the Arbitral Award is for the payment of money, no interest shall be payable on whole or any part of the money for any period till the date on which the Award is made."
5
this Court. In the result, the Original Petition is dismissed. No costs.
17.12.2018
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
(tsg)
6
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
(tsg)
Original Petition No.71 of 2012
17.12.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Arbitral Tribunal's Award requires interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as it failed to award interest as sought by the petitioner.
Whether the petitioner successfully challenged the non-grant of interest on the Award despite the General Conditions of Contract clause excluding interest.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D.Karthikeya
Southern Railway
Kannan
S.Selvadurai
K.Rajkumar
T.Nesamani
S.Vaidyanathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
