SETH MOHANLAL HIRALAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is a partnership firm and it had undertaken a contract with the respondent for construction of a flood protection wall in Hoshangabad town in the year 1974-75.

(2.) It is alleged that the appellant had done some extra work and it was not paid its dues and therefore the appellant filed a suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in the District Court at Hoshangabad. The learned District Judge appointed an arbitrator. The arbitrator after hearing the parties gave an award on 28-11-1985, wherein the respondent was required to pay a sum of Rs. 1,04,200. The said award was filed before the District Court for being made rule of the Court.

(3.) However, the respondent filed an objection stating that the arbitrator had committed misconduct as he had gone outside the purview of the contract. The Court was of the view that since the arbitrator had gone out of the purview of the contract and had not considered relevant clauses of the agreement, therefore he had committed misconduct. Accordingly, the award was set aside and the District Court reduced the amount payable from Rs. 1,04,200 to Rs. 16,400.