EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ORISSA Vs. GANGARAMCHHAPOLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the State of orissa against the judgment of learned Single Judge of orissa High court, dismissing the appeal preferred by the State. The matter arises under the Arbitration Act. In September 1968, an agreement was entered into between the State of orissa and the respondentherein for execution of a certain work. The date stipulated for completion of work was 7/01/1969. On 20/12/1969, a sum of Rs. 1,45,962. 00 was a paid to the respondent, on which occasion he made the following endorsement on the Measurement Book: "i accept the measurements in full and final settlement of the work done by me. There is no more to be claimed. "

(2.) The appellant's case is that having kept quiet for a number of years, the respondent raised a dispute, claiming a certain amount in respect of the said work. The dispute was referred to an arbitrator. Before the Arbitrator, the respondent filed a claim for a sum of Rs. 1,82,395. 05 along with interest at 25 per cent per annum from 30/10/1969. The State filed a counter inter alia raising the contention that in view of the aforementioned endorsements on the measurement Book, the respondent cannot raise any claim for further amount. To this counter, the respondent filed a rejoinder pleading that the said endorsement was obtained by coercion.

(3.) The arbitrator made an award on 21/04/1976 whereunder he awarded an amount of Rs. 37,213. 00 to the respondent with interest at 9 per cent per annum from December 21, 196 9/06/1976. The State applied to the learned subordinate Judge, Cuttack for setting aside the award under Section 30 of the arbitration Act. It contended that the arbitrator has failed to decide the main question raised by it inasmuch as he failed to record any finding on the plea raised with reference to the endorsement aforementioned. The learned subordinate Judge, however, rejected the said contention on the following grounds: The Measurement Book shows that the said endorsement made by the respondent has been scored out. There is, however, no evidence as to who scored it out, at what stage and for what reason; neither the respondent nor the arbitrator can be held to be responsible for such scoring out; since the State has failed to establish the circumstances in which the said endorsement was scored out, in spite of being afforded adequate opportunity, the said endorsement cannot be relied upon for any purpose. Accordingly, he rejected the petition filed by the State and made the award a Rule of the court.