Anil Dev Singh, J. - (1.)The applicant/respondent. Middle East Exchange & Trade Group of Companies, Dubai (for short "Meetco (Dubai)") by means of this application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act challenges the award of the Arbitrators dated September 26, 1990. The facts giving rise to this application are as under:-
"The petitioner, the Special Organising Committee for IX Asian Games(for short "SOC") and the respondent/applicant Meetco - Dubai entered into an agreement dated March 3, 1982 whereby the former granted to the latter, sole and exclusive world-wide rights & privileges to display advertisement and/or advertise from within and inside the sports venues where IX Asian Games were to take place during the period November 19, 1982 to December 14, 1982. The rights and privileges granted by the petitioner were subject to the terms & conditions stipulated in the agreement. The agreement postulated that Meetco - Dubai would pay a sum of six million U.S.Dollars in three instalments in accordance with clause 2 of the agreement as per below:- i) First instalment of one million dollars to be paid on or before August 30,1982, ii) Second instalment of two million dollars on or before September 30,1982 and iii) Third instalment of three million dollars on or before October 30, 1982."

(2.)The contract also required Meetco - Dubai to furnish an irrevocable bank guarantee for U.S. Dollars six million in favour of SOC within 21 days from the date of signing of the contract in accordance with the form specified in Annexure III thereof. In the event of failure of Meetco - Dubai to pay any of the instalments on the due dates, the failed instalment could be recovered forthwith by the SOC by invoking the bank guarantee. Meetco - Dubai had also agreed to pay 7,50,000 U.S. Dollars out of the total price of six million dollars in Indian rupees in case Meetco - Dubai received consideration in Indian currency for the advertisement sold by it to any person resident in India. On March 30,1982 Meetco - Dubai assigned its rights and privileges under the aforesaid agrement in favour of Meetco (London), a company incorporated and registered under the laws of the United Kingdom. It is not disputed that Meetco (London) undertook to fulfil the commitment & liability of Meetco (Dubai) and to pay the amounts payable to the SOC under the aforesaid agreement. It is also not in dispute that Meetco Dubai by its communication dated July 23, 1982 confirmed to SOC that it will primarily be liable for performance of its obligation under the contract with SOC. Meetco (Dubai) failed to furnish the bank guarantee by the stipulated-date viz. March 25, 1982. However, it furnished a bank guarantee of a sum of five million U.S. Dollars instead of six million U.S. Dollars on May 6, 1982 from the Bank of Arab Coast and undertook to furnish a bank guarantee for the remaining sum of one million U.S. Dollars by September 30, 1982. Meetco also failed to make payment of the first instalment of a sum of one million U.S. Dollars which became due and payable on August 30, 1982 as per clause 2 of the agreement. It also did not furnish the bank guarantee for the remaining sum of one million U.S. Dollars by September 30, 1982. In view of the default of Meetco,-SOC on September 23, 1982 invoked the arbitration clause, namely, clause .24 of the agreement. On September 30, 1982 SOC nominated Mr.B. Sen as its Arbitrator, while on October 9, 1982 respondent nominated Mr.Justice K.K. Desai as its Arbitrator and also intimated the SOC by communication dated October 19, 1982 that Mr.Justice K.K. Desai would also act as.an Arbitrator on behalf of Meetco (London). Since in terms of clause 24 of the agreement, the disputes and differences were required to be referred to Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three Arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party and the third Arbitrator to be appointed by both the parties and as the parties were unable to agree to the appointment of a third Arbitrator, the SOC on November 2, 1982 filed an application under- section 20 in this Court against Meetco (Dubai) and Meetco (London) for appointment of a third Arbitrator. It needs to be noted that Meetco (London) had already moved the International Chamber of Commerce ( for short "ICC") for appointment of the third Arbitrator and its President had appointed Mr.James Fitzpatrick as the third Arbitrator. The High Court in view of the appointment of the third Arbitrator by the President of ICC in accordance with clause 24 of the agreement dated March 3, 1982, referred the disputes and differences to the aforesaid three Arbitrators (hereinafter called Arbitrators or Arbitral Tribunal). SOC filed its statement of case before the Arbitrators on June 15, 1983 claiming a sum of six million U.S. Dollars together with interest thereon at 18% and costs from Meetco (Dubai) and Meetco (London). On the other hand Meetcos claimed a sum of eighteen million four hundred eight thousand seven hundred forty nine U.S. Dollars ($.18,408,749) as damages together with interest @ 15% and costs from SOC. The Tribunal proceeded with the matter and had its two sittings on October 13 and 14, 1983. However, SOC not being satisfied with the third Arbitrator, namely, Mr.James Fitzpatrick filed an application under sections 5,8,11,12 and 20 of the Arbitration Act before this Court seeking to revoke his authority as an Arbitrator and the appointment of another Arbitrator in place of Mr.James Fitzpatrick on the ground of a possible connection of one of the witnesses in the arbitration proceedings to the law firm of Mr.James Fitzpatrick. Subse- quently, Mr.James Fitzpatrick resigned as an Arbitrator and this Court on January 20, 1986 appointed Justice A.C.Gupta as the third Arbitrator. The Arbitral Tribunal gave opportunity to both the sides to lead evidence and after hearing the parties made and published the award. On October 26, 1990 the award was filed in this Court. While the petitioner SOC prayed for making the award a rule of the Court, the respondent Meetco (Dubai) filed objections to the same and has prayed that the award be set aside.
(3.)The Tribunal upheld the claim of SOC against Meetco (Dubai) for a sum of three million U.S. Dollars as compensation for losses suffered on account of the non payment of the instalments under the contract dated March 3, 1982 but rejected the claim of SOC for interest. In so far as Meetco's (Dubai) claim against SOC for damages and interest is concerned, the same was disallowed. As regards the costs, each party was directed to bear one half of the cost of the arbitration.