STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 29.7.1976 passed by the Third Additional Civil Judge. Bangalore City, in Original Suit No 150 of 1974 on his file, rejecting the application made under S. 30 read with section 33 of the ARBITRATION ACT, 1940, 1940 and directing that a decree be passed in terms of the award passed by the Arbitrators

(2.) THE Karnataka State entered into two agreements dated 21.9 1960 and 24.11.1960 with the respondent/defeadant M/s. Hindustan Construction Co , Ltd., in the matter of construction of pressure Twin Tunnels at Vodenbyle and their approaches under the agreement dated 21.9.1960, referred to as Part I, and construction of Surge Tanks and Penstock Tunnels under agreement dt. 24.11.1960, referred to as Part I Disputes having arisen with regard to refund of payment of certain amount, the Contractor issued notice of arbitration dated 4.3.1971 under Clause 51 of the General Condition of the contract. THE claimants appointed Shri N.D. Daftary as an Arbitrator on their behalf and the State of Mysore appointed Shri S.G. Balekundry, Chief Engineer, as their Arbitrator. Reference was entered upon on 14.5.1971 and Arbitrators made an award on 28.4.1972 allowing certain claims made by the Contractor and they filed an application under Section 17 of the ARBITRATION ACT, 1940, 1940, before the Civil Court, Bangalore City, to make the award into a decree of the Court. In the said proceeding, the State of Karnataka, through the Engineer-in-chief (Electrical), Power Corporation limited and the Chief Engineer, S.V.P. Cell. Water Development Organisation, made an application under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the ARBITRATION ACT, 1940, 1940, to declare the award produced into Court by the Arbitrators as one made without jurisdiction and to set aside the same According to them, the Arbitrators has misconducted themselves in the proceeding.

(3.) THE learned Civil Judge, appreciating the material placed before him. in the light of the arguments addressed before him answered Issue No. 1 holding that the Arbitrators had jurisdiction to adjudicate. He answered Issues Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the negative and, in that view, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application to set aside the award and thereupon directed that a decree be passed in terms of the award. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the State has instituted the above appeal before this Court.