STATE OF KERALA Vs. RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has come up with this appeal as the State is aggrieved by the judgment in O.P. (Arb.) No. 82 of 1992 on the file of the IIIrd Additional Sub MFA 1120 of 1996 Decided on: 4-12-2002 Judge, Ernakulam where the Arbitrator had filed an award and consequently where the respondents had filed an application under S.17 of the Arbitration Act for a judgment in terms of the award. The appellant also filed application under S.30 of the said Act to set aside the award. The application under S.17 filed by the respondent was allowed and the application filed by the appellate under S.30 of the Act was dismissed.

(2.) IT is urged by the appellants that the Arbitrator has gone beyond the jurisdiction in so far as the agreement did not clothe the Arbitrator with the power to award an amount as indicated in the award. It is further submitted that Clause.51 of the Local Competitive Bidding conditions forming part of the general terms of the contract was not invoked by the respondent. In the absence of such invocation, there is lack of jurisdiction for the Arbitratory to consider an of the claims urged before him. It is further contended that the Arbitrator had misconducted with respect to point Nos. 4, 6 and 8 in the award in so far as the Arbitrator awarded additional cost incurred by the respondent for transportation of pieces of granite from Pathanathitta rather than from Kulakadavu quarry at Kumbanad, in so far as extra rate was granted for soling and metalling and in so far as compensation was granted in the count of idling on men and machineries. Its submitted that these are beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and therefore amount to misconduct.

(3.) SUB -s.2 of S.14 of the Act enables the Arbitrator to file the award or signed copy thereof together with depositions and document forming part of the evidence on record, in 'Court'. Court is defined in S.2(c) as follows: