Arindam Sinha, J
1. Mr. Sahu, learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellants resumes his submissions in continuation of those made and recorded in order dated
29th March, 2022. He refers to paragraph 24 in the award, which deals with whether his client was entitled to recover cost of material and interest.
He submits, there was a cost and interest component, outstanding from respondent on account of supply of steel. The tribunal committed illegality in
rejecting the counter claim. On query from Court he submits, the supply was made on request of respondent and not as an obligation under the
contract.
2.  The then draws attention to clause (iii) under paragraph 30 in the award. He submits, there was award of Rs.2000/- per school, aggregating
Rs.1,00,000/- said to be payable due to use of potable water. Referring to clause 8 in the Letter of Intent dated 24th April, 2000 (Ext. R-10), he
demonstrates that, inter alia, water was to be arranged by the contractor at its cost.
3. Moving on to clause (iv) under the paragraph he submits, extra transportation cost including lifts and leads were awarded at Rs. 31,50,000/-. There
was clear mention under clause 4 in additional special conditions (Ext. R-10) that all leads, lifts, transportation was included in the scope of work.
4. With reference to clause (x) under the paragraph he submits, compensation could not have been awarded. There was arbitrary award of Rs.1000/-
for each completed school, i.e., 86 in number. The contract did not provide for payment of compensation and the arbitrator could not have awarded.
Furthermore, there was award of Rs.8,95,000/- also arbitrarily made at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per school for 60 schools taken out of the scope of
work, Rs.15,000/- for 13Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â schools and Rs.20,000/- for 5 schools. He submits, claimant/respondent itself pleaded for
reducing scope of the work. Hence from total number of schools in original scope of work, some schools were taken out. Compensation for pilferage
or stealing or whatever could not have been awarded as not provided in the contract. The arbitrator travelled beyond four corners of the contract and
hence there should be interference.
5. He relies on several judgments of the Supreme Court.
i) MMTC Ltd. vs. M/S.Vedanta Ltd., reported in (2019) 4 SCC 163, paragraphs 10 to 12, wherein earlier judgments of the Court in Associate
Builders vs. BDA, ONGC Ltd. vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. etc. were referred for well settled law that Court does not sit in appeal over the arbitral award and
may interfere on merits on limited grounds provided under section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
ii) Maharashtra vs. Rashid Babu Bhai Mulani, reported in AIR 2006 SC 825, paragraph 14. The Supreme Court, in the paragraph, said regarding
postal dispatch under certificate of posting and the ease, with which such certificate can be procured by affixing ante dated seal with the connivance
of any employee of the post office, was a matter of concern. He reiterates, the tribunal relied on documents introduced by additional rejoinder. Those
were copies of letters allegedly sent to his client under certificate of posting.
iii) Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. J.C. Budharaja, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 122. He submits, this judgment was rendered in adjudication under
Arbitration Act, 1940 but the principle of law applies. The Court found that the award was passed in disregard of express terms of the contract and
therefore was arbitrary, capricious and without jurisdiction, as in the case here.
iv) Food Corporation Of India vs M/S.Chandu Construction, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 697, paragraphs 11 to 13. He submits, this judgment too was
rendered under the Act of 1940, on jurisdictional error committed by the arbitrator in travelling beyond four corners of the contract.
6. Mr. Sahu concludes his submission. Mr. Kanungo, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of respondent will be heard on adjourned date.
7. List on 26th April, 2022.
………………………
