SALUJA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. NORTHERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted : Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dtd. 2/1/2018 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in A.A. No. 30 of 2012, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal filed under Sec. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) and has quashed and set aside the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, the original claimant has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) That the appellant herein was awarded the contract for construction of 100 Nos. B-Type Quarters at Bina (hereinafter referred to as the Bina project). An agreement was entered into between the parties on 11/1/1986. A dispute arose between the parties with respect to the Bina project. The contractor issued a notice under Clause 9 of the agreement to appoint an arbitrator in respect of Bina Project only. The respondent rejected the claim of the contractor. The appellant raised a Bill of Rs.2,23,215.00 and then filed an application under Sec. 8/20 of the Arbitration Act for filing of agreement and appointment of arbitrator. Thus it appears that the dispute at the relevant time was only with respect to the work relating to the Bina Project. However, before the learned Arbitrator, the claim was raised with respect to the other projects and in relation to the sister concerns regarding 'Amlohri Project' and 'Jhingurda Project'. The learned Arbitrator passed an award with respect to the dispute relating to other agreements/contracts even in relation to sister concerns over and above the dispute with respect to the Bina Project. The appeal under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration Act against the judgment and award passed by the learned Arbitrator came to be dismissed against which the respondent preferred an appeal under Sec. 37 before the High Court. It was submitted that the learned Arbitrator appointed only for the contract relating to Bina Project and the agreement relating to the Bina Project was filed before the learned Arbitrator. It was submitted that as per Sec. 2(a), 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, the mandatory requirement was to decide the dispute in relation to a written agreement which was filed before the arbitrator. Therefore, it was submitted that the learned Arbitrator has travelled beyond in passing the award in respect of four contracts. The High Court in the impugned judgment and order has accepted the submissions on behalf of the respondent and has quashed and set aside the award passed by the learned Arbitrator.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the contractor has preferred the present appeal.