HARBANSLAL BHAYANA AND SONS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the case having been taken up for arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this application, which is dismissed is withdrawn. By this order, I would be disposing of IA No. 2180/93, which are objections filed by the respondent/UOI to the award dated 28.2.1992. Petitioner had been awarded a contract of the construction of Suchna Bhawan vide agreement 2EE(C)/DCD-III/85-86. Disputes and differences between the parties were referred to the Sole Arbitrator, Mr. R.J. Bhakhru, who made and published his award on 28.2.1992.

(2.) Learned arbitrator rejected claims 4, 5 and 6 and allowed claim Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 totalling to Rs. 2,37,197.00 . Learned Arbitrator also awarded simple interest @ 14% p.a. from 1.5.1990. Learned counsel for petitioner very fairly concedes that the said date would not correspond to the date either of the notices given for invocation of arbitration. In these circumstances, he submits that the petitioner would be satisfied and would not have any objection to the interest being awarded from the date of reference i.e. 2.11.1990. The award in respect of interest is modified to interest being granted from the date of reference i.e. 2.11.1990 till the date of payment or realisation. The petitioner has not preferred any objection and the objections preferred by this IA are by the respondent.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent/objector submits that the arbitrator had committed misconduct in making an award in respect of claim No. 3 in as much as 166 cement bags which were damaged were in custody of the contractor. Arbitrator has held that the damage was caused on account of flood, which was beyond the control of claimants/petitioner, who could not be responsible for lack of adequate drainage or the flood. It is also stated that cement bags were found to be the property of the respondent. Reasons given by the Arbitrator are cogent and there is no error apparent in the said reasoning. This Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 does not question the reasonableness of reasons. Objection in this regard has no merit and is rejected.