D.P. Wadhwa, J.

I.As. 17 to 20 of 1998 are objections filed by M/s Gautam Construction and Fisheries Ltd. (GC&FL) under sections 15, 17 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, the `Act') to the award dated September 9, 1997 of the sole Arbitrator, Justice V. Khalid, a retired Judge of this Court. IAs. 21 to 24 are the objections similarly filed by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) against the same award.

2. GC&FL in their objections seek directions for modification of the award to correct an error with regard to wrong deduction of Rs. 30,00,000/- twice by the Arbitrator from their claims 1 and 13 in their statement of claim. They have also claimed interest @18% per annum on the amount of the award in their favour till payment. AWHO in their objections also seek modification of the award stating that their claim for anticipated liability towards completion of the contract was wrongly rejected by the Arbitrator, when some of the amounts claimed were towards "firm liability". Both parties disputed the objections of each other to the award as aforesaid.

3. Little background will be necessary to understand the objections raised by the parties. There was a contract entered into between them for construction of certain number of dwelling units by GC&FL for AWHO on the land belonging to GC&FL. Contract contained an arbitration clause. Disputes arose between the parties resulting in cancellation of contract by the AWHO and issuance of publication of notice for re-tendering of the contract for the balance of the work. Instead of seeking appointment of arbitrator under the terms of the contract, GC&FL filed an application under section 20 of the Act and also filed an application under section 41 of the Act seeking interim directions. These proceedings were filed in the Madras High Court. The learned single judge by order dated September 18, 1995 appointed a retired judge of the Madras High Court as sole arbitrator and at the same time restrained AWHO from re-tendering the work pending disposal of arbitration proceedings. Arbitration agreement under the contract prescribed a different mode for appointment of arbitrator but that is not relevant now and unnecessary for us to examine that aspect. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court AWHO sought leave to appeal to this Court which was granted by order dated December 4, 1995 and the appeal itself was also heard and disposed of on the same day. With the consent of the parties, this court then appointed Justice V. Khalid, a retired Judge of this Court, as the Arbitrator and also authorised him to take any help from any technically qualified person. Liberty was given to the parties to approach the Arbitrator for any interim relief including vacation of the injunction order granted by the High Court regarding re- tendering of the work. It was also directed that the Arbitrator would file the award in this Court only and other courts were interdicted from interfering in the arbitration proceedings.

4. After entering into the reference, the Arbitrator gave an interim award on May 8, 1996 whereby he vacated the order of injunction granted by the High Court in its judgment dated September 18, 1995. This interim award when filed in this Court was made rule of the Court as no party filed any objection to the same. Thereafter the Arbitrator gave his final award on September 9, 1997 and on notice of filing the same given to the parties, they filed their objections now under consideration.

5. The award is quite elaborate. It takes into account numerous details. Arbitrator framed as many as 10 issues and then went on to examine each of the claims put forward by the parties with reference to the record before him. In the objections filed by AWHO it seeks remission of the award. The objections are though under sections 15, 17 and 33 of the Act. In the course of arguments, it was submitted by Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the AWHO that the award be remitted back to the Arbitrator which would be under section 16 of the Act, though in the prayer modification of the award under section 15 is sought. AWHO submitted that though it claimed certain amounts as `firm liability' after the contract was cancelled and there were certain `anticipated expenses' required to complete the contract. It was submitted that the Arbitrator treated even the firm liability as in the nature of elements of anticipated expenses and disallowed the same. It was submitted that on this account the Arbitrator committed a mathematical error. It is not the case of the AWHO that the Arbitrator did not examine or did not take into account the claim put forward by the AWHO. It is not possible for us to re- appreciate the evidence produced before the Arbitrator and then ourselves coming to the conclusion whether a certain amount claimed was towards `firm liability' or in the `nature of anticipated expenses'. Once the Arbitrator had held that the claim would be in the `nature of anticipated expanses', it is difficult for us to hold the same otherwise. It cannot be said that the award is not good on the face of it on that account. The objections of AWHO have no force and IAs 21 to 24 are rejected.

6. Under the terms of the contract GC&FL would be entitled to a total amount of Rs. 54,95,271.72 as retention money from the total contract amount. The Arbitrator found that under the contract, GC&FL executed work of the value of Rs. 4,52,10,002/- and as such GC&FL would be entitled to retention money to the extent of 63.47%. Thus, from the retention money of Rs. 54,95,271/- which GC&FL would be entitled to on completion of the contract, a sum of Rs. 34,87,848.90 is now due to them being 63.47% of Rs. 54,95,271.72. On completion of 50% of the work GC&FL had already received Rs. 30,00,000/- as retention money in three instalments. Thus, GC&FL would be entitled to the balance amount of Rs. 4,87,848.90 towards the retention money. The Arbitrator found that under claims 1 and 13 of GC&FL an amount of Rs. 7,08,893.60 would be due to GC&FL from AWHO. This is how the Arbitrator arrived on this figure:

"The ultimate position is as follows:

Thus, a sum of Rs. 7,08,893.50 is allowed under Claim Nos. 1 and 13."

The objection of GC&FL is that amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- has been deducted twice by the Arbitrator which was a mistake apparent on the face of it and as such this Court should modify the award and grant a further amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- to that already awarded by the Arbitrator under claims 1 and 13. We do not think that Mr. Thakur is right in his approach. GC&FL is entitled to Rs.4,87,848.90 towards balance of retention amount as an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- GC&FL had already received. GC&FL cannot be paid Rs. 30,00,000/- twice over. In the claim made by GC&FL, it should have deducted Rs. 30,00,000/- which it had already received. As a matter of fact, the Arbitrator observed as under:-

"Claim No. 1 suffers from a serious flaw and the same can be rejected outright. On a perusal of the claim and the various items shown therein, it is seen that the petitioners have either inadvertently or deliberately omitted to deduct Rs. 30 lakhs towards retention money obtained by them on three occasions for 50% of the work done. If this Rs. 30 lakhs is deducted from the claim made in claim No. 1, the claim is reduced to a minus figure. This error, however, is seen corrected in the petitioners' reply to the Respondents' claim No. 1."

In fact, in the calculations aforesaid, under item (h), the Arbitrator could have said : " Balance of the retention money payable - Rs. 4,87,848.90/-." Retention money due to GC&FL is from the whole of the value of the contract. Total of retention money as arrived at by the Arbitrator is Rs.53,95,271.72 which is payable on completion of the contract by the AWHO. Since GC&FL executed only 636.47% of the value of the contract they became entitled to Rs. 34,87,848.90 being 63.47% of Rs. 54,95,271.72. Having already received Rs. 30,00,000/- GC&FL became entitled to balance amount of Rs. 4,87,848.90 which the Arbitrator allowed them under the award.

7. As far as the claim of interest is concerned, the award has already allowed the same and no objection thereto has been filed by AWHO or even by GC&FL on the claim due to AWHO under the award. IAs. 17 to 20 of the GC&FL are rejected.

8. IAs. 13 to 16 filed by GC&FL seeking directions for modification of the Award and for grant of interest also stand dismissed.

Accordingly the award dated September 9, 1997 is made rule of the court and decree in terms thereof will be passed. Since both the parties have failed in their objections to the award, they shall bear their own costs.

IAs. dismissed.