NARAINDAS R ISRANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act for making the award dated 10-5-90 given by H.N. Chandwani, Arbitrator, respondent No. 2. a rule of the Court.

(2.) BRIEF facts which gave rise to the present petition are as under that petitioner is a "A' class contractor. He carries on his business of construction under the name and style of M/s. Narain Dass R. Israni (hereinafter referred to as petitioner for the sake of brevity). The Union of India, respondent No. 1. awarded a contract to the petitioner for construction of Farmers' Hostel, IARI, Pusa Hoad, New Delhi (hereinfter referred to as Respondent No. 1 for the sake of convenience) vide an agreement No. T/EE/CP B/77-78. Later on disputes and differences arose in between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and the same were referred to Shri H.N. Chandwani, respondent No. for adjudication (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.2). The respondent No.2 made and published his award on 10.5.90. The said award was filed before the Court on 29.8.90. Notices were issued to both the parties in regard there to. The petitioner did not file any objection against the said award and prayed that the same be made rule of the Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the objector in view of the above has argued with all the vehemence at his command that in the instant case the contract was awarded on 22.9.77, the contract was completed on 24.8.79, the final bill was presented on 5.9.88, the reference to the arbitration was made on 3.2.89. The reference, thus. to the arbitration was hopelessly barred by time inamuch as it was made near about ten years after the completion of the contract. The learned counsel in support of his above argument has led me through the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court as reported in AIR 1975 SC 1259. K.P. Poulose Vs. State of Kerala and Anr....." Misconduct under Section 30 (a) has not a connotation or moral lapse. It comprises legal misconduct which is complete if the Arbitrator on the face of the award arrives at an inconsistent conclusion even on his own finding or arrives at a decision by ignoring very material documents which throw abundant light on the controversy to help a just and fair decision." Thus, on the basis of the above authority teamed counsel for respondent No. 1 has argued that the arbitrator should have rejected all the claims of the petitioner as the same were barred by time in view of a large number of documents placed on the record of the arbitrator by the objector. The petitioner laid their claims for the recovery of the amount vide letters dated 16.3.82, 15.3.82 and 1.2.82 i.e. Exts. P5, P6 and P7 respectively. The same were rejected by the respondent through their letters dated 8.3.82 and 26.7.82 i.e. Exts. R1 and R2 respectively. Thus, if the period of limitation is computed even from the date of the letter Ex. R2 i.e. 26.7.82 even then the period of limitation expired on 26.7.85.