STATE Vs. V P MURALIDHARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :-

(2.) THE award passed by an Arbitrator was made the rule of the Court, and a decree was passed in terms of the award. THE State of Kerala and the Superintending Engineer concerned, having failed to get the award set aside, filed this appeal.

(3.) SOME facts, relevant for this appeal, are the following : Respondent was engaged to carry out the work for making approach road to Mamom bridge for which an agreement was executed by him in favour of the Governor of Kerala. The site was handed over to him on 14-9-84. The work should have been completed on or before 13-4-1986 which is the expiry of a period of 19 months of handing over the site. But the contract was terminated on 5-1-86 due to other reasons. Respondent raised the main dispute that the termination was unjust and illegal. He filed O.S. (Arbitration) No. 342/ 86 in the Sub-Court, Trivandrum, under S.20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act.') The suit was resisted mainly on the ground that there is no arbitration agreement. However, learned Sub-Judge, on a finding that there is arbitration agreement, referred the disputes to arbitration. The Court appointed a retired Superintending Engineer as Arbitrator from out of the names included in the panels suggested by both sides. The Arbitrator entered on reference 30-12-86 and passed the impugned award on 15-6-87. On the application made by the respondent in the lower Court, the award was made the rule of the Court directing the State to pay the award amount within two months failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of decree.