KIDAR NATH SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Kidar Nath Sharma, is a contractor. He has filed the present petition under Section 14 and 17of the Arbitration Act praying for the award of the arbitrator to be made a rule of the court and for a decree to be passed in terms of the award. In pursuance of the notices having been issued the respondent Union of India has filed the objections assailing the award on various grounds. The objections have been filed under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Needless to state that the same are being contested.

(2.) On 5/03/1998 on behalf of the Union of India it had been pointed that without prejudice to his rights and contentions an order for payment of amount and interest be passed and the Union of India be allowed to deposit the amount allowed by the arbitrator along with the interest with the registry of the court. On 19/03/1999 on behalf of the objector/respondent it was stated that the amount has since been deposited. By the present order the objections referred to are proposed to be disposed. It was not in controversy that proceedings of the arbitrator could be red in evidence.

(3.) On behalf of the Union of India/objector it was asserted that the bill had been accepted in full and final settlement and payment of this fact has totally be ignored by the arbitrator. The attention of the court was drawn to the fact that if after full and final settlement within 30 days further claim is not laid the arbitrator could not award in terms of the agreement any further amount. The contractor had to list the disputed items. He did not raise the dispute and therefore it was argued that the objections as such on this short ground should succeed. At the outset it can well be mentioned that unless an objection is raised before the arbitrator or unless it is a part of the objections before the court, the court will not travel beyond the submissions already made and go into new pleas that are being offered. In the present case in controversy this plea had been raised before the arbitrator. It has not been noticed even by the arbitrator or in other words it can safely be stated that no such argument had been advanced before the arbitrator. Specifically such a plea in so many words in clear and unambiguous terms has not been agitated in the objections. Therefore, this new plea cannot be entertained and at the outset deserves to be rejected.