VISHWANATH SOOD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Vishwanath Sood undertook the construction of a Farmers Community Centre Building at Thanedhar by an agreement entered into with the Union of India and the State of HimachalPradesh dated 20-6-1968. Certain disputes arose between the parties to the agreement and in terms of clause 25 of the agreement they were referred to a sole arbitrator. The contractor submitted a claim of Rs. 1,28,000 while the respondents also submitted a counter-claim. By an award dated 20-3-1972, the arbitrator awarded an amount of Rs. 31,932/- to the contractor and a sum of Rs. 21,504/- to the respondents. The award was filed in the court. The contractor filed an application in the court for modification or correction of the award in respect of three items of his claim (1, 8 and 9) and item No. 1 of the respondent's counter claim. The Department also filed its objections to the award and prayed that a sum of Rs. 8,080.29 should be awarded in favour of the Department or the award remitted to arbitrator. The learned single Judge dismissed the objections of the respondents. So far as the appellant's prayers were concerned, he allowed the same only in respect of item 1 of the respondent's counter claim. He held that the arbitrator was not justified in granting to the Government a sum of Rs. 20,000/ against the contractor. Both the contractor and the respondents preferred appeals to the Division Bench. The Bench reversed the order of the learned Single Judge. It set aside the order of the learned Single Judge in so far as the sum of Rs. 20,000/- was deleted thereby from the award of the arbitrator. The award was restored to its original terms and the contractor was held entitled to interest at 6 per cent on the amount found due to him after adjusting the sum awarded by the arbitrator in favour of the Government against the sum awarded in favour of the contractor.

(2.) The contractor has preferred this appeal by special leave from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant pressed the contentions in respect of the four items to which he had objected before the learned single Judge and the Division Bench. Three of these items pertain to the claims put forward by the contractor which were rejected by the arbitrator and held by the courts to have been rightly rejected. The first claim (item No. 1) made by the contractor was of a sum of Rs. 12,720/-, which, according to him, was the loss incurred by him by reason of the Department's delay in handing over the site to him for executing the contract. The learned Single Judge discussed this aspect of the matter at length. He observed that, on this point. there was, on the one hand, oral evidence adduced on behalf of the Department while there was only the bare denial of the contractor on the other. He pointed out that the arbitrator had fully considered the matter and that it was not open to the court to reassess the evidence and that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. The second claim (item No. 8) was for a sum of Rs.6, 172/- being the amount kept as security with the respondent. In respect of this item also the learned Single Judge discussed the evidence which showed that the security amount had been properly adjusted by the Department which had been constrained to take up the work departmentally at the cost and risk of the contractor. He held that this was an aspect which had been considered by the arbitrator and a proper conclusion arrived at. The third claim put forward by the petitioner (item No. 9) was for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- claimed as compensation for an amount spent by the contractor for the purchase of a truck for this work. The learned Single Judge here again pointed out that no material had been placed before the arbitrator by the contractor to show that he was entitled to the amount and that, in any event, having regard to the fact that the work was executed by the Department at the cost and risk of the contractor, there was no question of the contractor preferring any claim in respect of this item. The above three claims of the petitioner were also rejected by the Division Bench which pointed out that the award made by the arbitrator was not a speaking award and that the face of the award did not show any error, We do not think that so far as these claims are concerned, that the appellant has any arguable case at all. As pointed out by the Division Bench of the High Court, the award was a non-speaking award. The arbitrator had considered the materials placed before him and had arrived at his conclusions. The award does not on the face of it disclose any error, much less any error of law, which needs to be set right. We therefore, hold that the High Court was justified in affirming the award so far as the rejection of these three claims is concerned.