RAGHU NATH SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award of the Umpire has been challenged on the point of non-jurisdiction and having traversed beyond the terms of the agreement. The relevant term of the agreement Is clause 6 which reads as under :-

(2.) Put briefly relevant facts are as unders :- The tender's were floated by the respondents for purchase and removal of residual coal ashes at Delhi Railway Station (loco and traffic shed) for the period 1.1.74 to 31.12.74. On 25.3.75 the petitioner raised his claims before the respondents which were rejected by the respondents. The Arbitrators were appointed by this Court on the presentation of an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. Vide letter dated 8.5.84 GM Northern Railway had appointed two Arbitrators namely Shri J.L.Jain and Shri K.L.Sikka. Since there were differences between the Arbitrators, vide letter dated 24.2.86 Shri K.N.Sharma entered into the reference as an Umpire to decide the disputes. The Umpire made the award to the effect that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.1,47,600 in full and final settlement of the claims referred to by the Arbitrator.

(3.) Admittedly it is a non speaking award. Mr.Jagjit Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent has contended with vehemence that as per clause 6 of the agreement neither did the Railway guarantee the quality nor did it take any responsibility of the increase or decrease in the approximate quantity of the ashes. dropped and as such the finding of the Umpire that respondent was obliged to guarantee fixed quantity is against the terms of the contract itself and is liable to be set aside. The award has also been challenged with regard to the interest awarded by the Umpire @ 12% per annum which came up to Rs.73,000.00. The main award is for Rs.66,600/. According to Mr. Singh the Arbitrator also traversed beyond the terms of the agreement in awarding the interest as it was clearly stipulated that no interest shall be allowed on the earnest money deposited or any amount due to the contractor under this contract. It is alleged that the Umpire also misconducted -by awarding Rs.8,000/- as costs against the claim of Rs.5,000.00.