SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents No.1 and 2 executed an agreement with the appellant for execution of the work of unloading and dressing of track ballast under the jurisdiction of ADEN/CPH on 27?2?2004, but the ultimate work order was not issued in favour of the appellant. The appellant thereafter, invoked the arbitration clause and the matter was referred to the arbitrator appointed by respondents No.1 and 2. The said arbitrator passed award on 12?10?2006 only granting refund of security deposit to the tune of ? 20,000/? and rejected the claim relating to loss of profit, interest and other expenditure finding that no work was carried out at all by the appellant. Against the rejection of claim, the appellant preferred an application under Section 34 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act of 1996') to the District Judge, Bilaspur, for setting aside the award. The learned District Judge declined to interfere with the award finding no merit against which this appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 has been preferred.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is entitled for loss of profit which has not been awarded as the award is against the public policy and the appellant kept his labour and machinery ready for execution of work, but on account of non?issuance of work order, he could not execute the work and suffered loss of profit. He placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705, Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority and another (2015) 4 SCC 136 and Govt. of A.P. and others v. V. Satyam Rao AIR 1996 Andhra Pradesh 288.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 would support the award and the order of the District Judge and would submit that since no work was available, only agreement was entered into and in case of availability of work, respondents No.1 and 2 could have issued work order, but as stated earlier, since no work was available, the appellant could not be awarded work by issuing work order, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.