LAUBRO INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this suit, award dated 15/12/1996 is being sought made rule of the court. On being noticed, respondent has assailed the award by filing objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by way of I.A.6003/1996.

(2.) The main thrust of the objections is with regard to claim no.1 and claim no.5. Claim no.1 is for payment of items of furnitures supplied and taken over by CPS Mhow. A contract was awarded by respondent to the petitioner for manufacture and supply of furniture amounting to Rs.15,54,970.00. The date of completion of supply was 5.4.1987 but at the request of petitioner, the same was extended to 26.8.1987. Despite extension, the petitioner failed to make complete supplies and it is alleged that even the material supplied was not In accordance with specifications. Besides oral requests. notice was also sent to the petitoner for,rectifying the defects and completing the balance supply but the petitioner failed to take any action for one year. This compelled the respondent to cancel the contract which they did on 10.9.1988. However, against balance work completed by the petitioner, the respondent preferred counter-claim of Rs.2,55,600.00 which was subsequently modified to Rs.2,78,968/- but the Arbitrator awarded Rs.15,000.00 towards risk and cost.

(3.) As Is apparent from the aforesaid facts, the findings of the Arbitrator in this regard are findings of facts based upon material and evidence produced by the parties. It is settled law that court does not sit in appeal and is therefore refrained from re-appreciating or re-evaluating the findings unless and until the Arbitrator commits such gross error by way of ignoring material which if taken into consideration would tilte or have significance effect on the award, the award should not be interferred with. I therefore do not find any ground for interference in respect of award on account of risk and cost.