UNION OF INDIA Vs. POLO SINGH AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.2.1997 passed by learned Single Judge in Suit No. 98/1996. The learned arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs.2,46,482/- plus interest to the respondent. The award was filed in the Court and was later on made rule of the Court. It may be pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the matter, the respondent herein filed I.A. No. 6174/1996 before the learned Single Judge who by the Order dated 17/07/1996 directed the appellant to pay to the respondent Rs.86,482.00 with interest at 12% per annum from 2.12.1992 till 25.12.1994 and interest at 14% per annum from 26.12.1994 till the date of payment. Out of the awarded amount Rs.86,482 with 12% were awarded to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that this amount had been paid to him by the appellant.

(2.) In the Order dated 17/07/1996, the learned Single Judge has correctly mentioned the amount of award (as Rs.2,46,482.00) but by a typographical error in the impugned Order dated 26/02/1997 the amount of Rs.2 ,46,482/- has been mentioned as Rs.2,96,980.00. The Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that because of a typographical error the amount has been wrongly mentioned whereas correct amount is Rs.2,46,482/- which ought to have been mentioned. This is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the remaining amount of Rs.1,60,000.00 with interest has been paid to him by the appellant, Therefore, the respondents were entitled to receive Rs.1,60,000/- plus Rs.86,482.00. Both these amounts were admittedly received by the respondent and now nothing is due and payable by the appellant to the respondent. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the appellant is that he may not get the credit or adjustment of the amount of Rs.86,482.00 already paid to the respondent. In that event the appellant may be compelled to pay the same amount twice. Mr. Chawla, the learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the learned artitrator was not Justified in awarding Rs.1,60,000.00 in absence of vouchers to the claimant/respondent.

(3.) It may be pertinent to mention that the Superintending Engineer of the Ministry of Urban Development was appointed as the Arbitrator by the appellant. In his Award the Arbitrator has given the reasons for arriving at the amount of Rs.1,60,000.00, relevant portion of the Award reads as under: