CHENNAI: In what could be a relief to the Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL), a division bench of the Madras High Court has struck down two awards of an arbitration tribunal granting more time to a firm for constructing two stretches of metro rail in Chennai. Finding that a ‘grave error’ was committed by the tribunal in passing the awards without giving an opportunity for all parties to respond on new evidence, the first bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy, recently, dismissed the appeals filed by Transtonnelstroy-Afcon, a joint venture firm that challenged a single judge order overturning the tribunal’s decision.
The bench held that calling for new evidence in the form of native files and data from the firm, after reserving the orders, to decide about the Extension of Time (EOT) without giving CMRL a chance to respond amounts to creating new evidence. It may not be so, if the ultimate analysis and conclusions are based on the expertise of the arbitrator arising out of his ‘intracranial information’, the bench said.
“In this case, there was no material on record to carry out such an exercise. The tribunal needed additional evidence in the form of native files and the data contained therein. Therefore, having found the necessity of the said documents, simply calling for the documents without divulging the reasons after reserving the case for orders and internal deliberation, it clearly amounts to taking these materials behind the back of the parties,” the bench said.
Despite confirming the single judge’s order on overturning the award of the tribunal in granting EOT, the bench, however, did not agree with reverting the matter back to the tribunal for adjudication as the only option is to order for fresh proceedings once the award is set aside. The bench said it is open for the parties to commence de novo proceedings as per law.
The firm was awarded two contracts for the construction of metro rail from Washermanpet to May Day Park and from Central to Egmore in 2011. It could not complete the project as per schedule. Citing certain reasons, it sought EOT for both the projects for which the CMRL did not agree leading to the dispute reaching the tribunal. The tribunal ordered in favour of the firm.