JACOB Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant challenges the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. 8642 of 1990 setting aside the award of the Arbitrator in part learned Judge held that Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to award interest pendente lite.

(2.) Appellant was the contractor for the work "P.I.P.R.B. Circle, formation of Kaviyoor Branch Canal, 3rd reach from Chh: 2,300 M -3576M -including C.D. works". The agreement was executed between him and respondents on 24-11-1976. Disputes arose during the progress of the work and those disputes were referred to Chief Engineer (Arbitration), Thiruvananthapuram. Chief Engineer (Arbitration) on 22-5-1978 passed a 'nil' award. Appellant filed O.P.(Arb.) 59 of 1978 under S.30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to set aside the award. The Sub Judge, Alappuzha set aside the award on 16-7-1980. Appellant filed O.P.(Arb.) 85 of 1984 before the Sub Court, Alappuzha under S.20 of the Act for referring the disputes to a fresh Arbitrator appointed by Court This petition was transferred to the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta where it was renumbered as O.P.(Arb) 54 of 1985. The Court on 25-9-1987 appointed Si. Sankara Ganakan, retired District Judge as sole Arbitrator. That order was challenged by the respondents before this Court in M.F.A.94 of 1988. By judgment dated 3-3-1989 this Court appointed Sri. K. Ramakrishnan Nair, retired Chief Engineer (PWD) as the sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator entered on reference on 22-3-1989. He passed award on 15-7-1989 granting Rs.2,28,132/-for extra work and Rs. 2,22,428/-towards interest. Other claims of the appellant and the counter claims of the respondents were rejected.

(3.) The arbitrator then filed the Award before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta under S.14 of the Act The prayer of the respondents to set aside the award was rejected by that Court. Decree in terms of the award was passed on 30-11-1989. The judgment and decree were challenged before this Court in M.F.A. 355 of 1990 on the ground that the Court below had no jurisdiction to receive the award and entertain it under S.17 of the Act. It was contended that the award ought to have been filed in the High Court as the Arbitrator was appointed by this Court. M.F.A. 355 of 1990 was allowed and the judgment and decree of the Sub Court were set aside and that Court was directed to return the award and necessary records to the Arbitrator for filing the same before this Court. Arbitrator filed the award and connected records before this Court and this Court issued notice in O.P. (Arb.) 7282 of 1990. Respondents filed application to set aside the award on disputes (1) and (3) decided by the Arbitrator