DESH BANDHU CHITTARANJAN MEMORIAL SOCIETY Vs. MILAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A petty sum of Rs.1,37,020.00 + Rs.1,53,482.59 + Rs.21,159.36 = Rs.3,11,661.95 has been troubling the appellant and the respondents are anxiously waiting for the appellant s troubles to be over, not by relief being granted but by telling the appellant to stop litigating any further. The first respondent M/s.Milan Kumar Mondal was the sole proprietary firm of late Milan Kumar Mondal, whose wife, son and daughter, impleaded as respondents No.2, 3 and 4 was awarded a work contract by the appellant. Execution of the work got delayed and as per the award the delay was attributable to the appellant. Milan Kumar Mondal was a petty contractor and after completing the works submitted a final bill and also sought compensation for escalation in the price of labour and material, idle tools, plant and machinery and idle labour. The bill not being settled he sought for arbitration as per the arbitration clause. The appellant refused to appoint an arbitrator. Milan Kumar Mondal filed a petition under Section 20 of the ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1940. Sh.Parijat Sinha Advocate was appointed as an arbitrator who refused to enter upon reference. He was replaced by Sh.N.N.Chakravorty who published the award on 9th July 2003 and thereafter filed the award in Court since neither party took steps contemplated by Section 14/17 of the Arbitration Act 1940. But, before he did so, the appellant on its own filed objections to the award by and under an interim application in the petition filed by Milan Kumar Mondal under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 which had already been disposed of.

(2.) BE that as it may, the objections were segregated and numbered as a suit and vide impugned order dated 1.11.2007 the objections have been dismissed.

(3.) WE agree. A party having participated without demur before an arbitrator and having taken a chance cannot turn around and question the award on the ground of delay.