UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRADEEP VINOD CONSTRUCTION CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA 9619/2005 Allowed subject to just exceptions. OMP 437/2005 The petition has been filed u/s 34(2) (a) of of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to impugn the award dated 16.08.2005 of the arbitral tribunal. The award has been rendered by a tribunal of three arbitrators including the nominee of the petitioner and the award is unanimous.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly confined his submissions to the aspects arising from the plea that the award in certain matters is contrary to the terms of the contract. This plea arises from the judgment of the apex court in ONGC Vs. SAW pipes Ltd; 2003 IV AD (S.C.) 254 = AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2629 where it was held that the words 'public policy of India' have to be given wider meaning and where an award is patently illegal, the award is likely to be interfered with. Further if an award is patently contrary to the terms of the contract, the court is entitled to interfere with the award. At this stage, it may clarified that while scrutinizing this aspect, it is not as if the award is required to be interfered with merely because there is another possible view to be taken on the finding arrived by the arbitrator. The award must be perverse in its reasoning while considering whether a particular aspect is or is not incorporated in the contract. So long as the view taken by the arbitrator is a plausible view, though perhaps not the only correct view, the award ought not to be interfered with by the court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim no.1 awarded for extra lead involved in earthwork arising from a ban imposed by the government after issuance of acceptance letter is contrary to the terms of the contract. In this behalf learned counsel has referred to Clause 4.1 of the Special data and specifications of Contract Agreement:-