SATISH KUMAR Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was awarded a contract for "repairs to Passenger platform Service with Bitumastic Flooring on Platform No. 2 at saharanpur" vide work order No. 128-W/280/den-I/umb dated 27. 02. 1992 by the respondent/union of India. By a letter dated 15. 06. 1995, the Union of India, through the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi appointed Shri Jagdeep Rai, Dy. Chief Engineer/const. /works, Northern railway and Shri A. K. Lal, Dy. F. A. and CAO/const. , Northern Railway, Delhi as Co-Arbitrators to adjudicate upon the disputes. The said Co-Arbitrators, as per terms of reference, jointly requested Shri Raj Kumar Sarkar, Dy. Chief Engineer/deposit Work, Northern Railway, Patel Nagar, New Delhi to act as Umpire vide letter No. 94/arb. /jr-ll dated 29. 6. 95 which he agreed to act on 3. 7. 1995. The Co-Arbitrators entered into the reference on 23. 11. 1995, but did not hold any hearing during the period of validity, that is, four months from the date of entering into the reference. Accordingly, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and requested Shri Raj Kumar sarkar to enter into the reference and to act as Umpire vide his letter dated 28. 03. 1998. Shri Raj Kumar Sarkar entered into the reference on 5. 4. 1999 and after having heard the parties and gone through the material on record, gave his award on 23. 7. 1999, thereby allowing the claims of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 60,395/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Three Hundred Ninety five only) with simple interest @ 12% p. a. on Rs. 51,690/- (that is, Rs. 60,395/- minus Rs. 8705/- = Rs. 51690/-) from 1. 10. 92 till the date of payment. The learned Umpire further held that if the awarded amount was not paid within a period of 75 days from the date of publishing of the award, the respondent would be liable to pay interest @ 18% to the contractor till the payment of the award amount. The learned Umpire, however, rejected the counter claim of the Railways to the tune of Rs. 15,000/ -.

(2.) THE respondent/union of India has filed the present objections to the award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 on the ground that the learned Umpire mis-conducted the proceedings, inasmuch as he could not have awarded the said amount in accordance with the specific clauses of the agreement and also as per the evidence available with him. The award of the learned Arbitrator is, therefore, stated to be against the facts on record and bad in law. The award is also stated to be based on conjectures and surmises. Finally, it is submitted that by interpreting the clauses of the agreement in a manner different from the original agreement the learned Umpire has exceeded the terms of reference. Thus, according to the Union of India, claims No. 1,2,4 and 5 were wrongly allowed by the arbitrator while the counter-claim of the Railways was wrongly dis-allowed and accordingly the award of the learned arbitrator was liable to be set aside under the provisions of Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940

(3.) THE petitioner/contractor has filed a detailed reply to the objections denying the objections in seriatum and praying for the dismissal of the objections with costs and for making the award the rule of the court with further interest @ 18% p. a. from the date of decree till the date of the payment.