submitted that, the Arbitral Tribunal, while passing the award, took into consideration the important factor that the operative date fixed for price escalation adjustment as per the tender, was from the closing date of the tender, i.e. 04.09.1991, and also found that there cannot be different dates for general labour, general materials and POL. Therefore, under these circumstances, the Arbitral Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the corrections made in the agreement were only an afterthought of the first respondent and rightly decided that the operative date for price escalation is only the date of receipt of tender, i.e., 04.09.1991 and not 28.01.1993 and awarded a sum of Rs.70,77,990/-, as worked out by the first respondent in Exs.D.11 and D.12, vide claim No.1 in favour of the claimant. Whereas, the learned Single Judge, by taking into consideration the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General for the first respondent that the claimant himself agreed to the price escalation as on 28.01.1993, vide his letter, dated 28.01.1993, but the Government, at the time of signing the contract had omitted to alter the date 28.01.1993 as the date for price escalation and erroneously, allowed the old date as the date for closing the tender for price escalation, and though the Arbitral Tribunal had considered this contention in detail and found that the first respondent was not for changing any of the tender conditions while accepting the increased value of contract, erroneously awarded claim No.1, the learned Single Judge interfered with the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under Claim No.1 and set aside the same.
