ONGC Vs. ANIL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arising out of the common judgment and decree of the City Civil Judge involving common questions of law and facts are proposed to be decided by a common judgment.

(2.) . The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are as under: In terms of Clause 25 of the Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the Arbitrator was appointed by the Court under Sec. 8 and 9 of the Arbitration Act. The disputes between the parties were referred to the Arbitrator who entered upon the reference. The Arbitrator gave first interim award in favour of the first opponent before the Court below on 12.2.1983. This first interim award was admittedly accepted by the parties though with slight hesitation. The first opponent submitted second application on 25.4.1983 for second interim award, whereafter, second interim award was given by the Arbitrator on 20.5.1983. Upon coming to know of the second interim award, the applicant moved before the Arbitrator for time to file revision against the second interim award- Objection to the second interim award was also filed before the Arbitrator through Civil Miscellaneous Application No: 487 of 1983. The second interim award was passed in Civil Misc. Application No : 418 of 1983 in Civil Misc. Application No : 555 of 1983. Objections to the interim award had been raised.

(3.) . The main grievance of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (for short "Commission") was that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to give second interim award and that too without fixing the date of hearing and inspite of knowng the fact that Shri J.N. Gupta, nominee of the Commission before the Arbitrator for conducting arbitration proceedings had proceeded on leave. The Arbitrator did not wait and on 2nd July, 1983, final award was given by him. It was also alleged that sufficient time was not given to the Commission in the arbitration proceedings as a result of which, principles of natural justice were violated. It was also objected that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction and authority to award interest. Misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator was also alleged on two grounds. Firstly, that the award was illegally procured and secondly that there was misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator by giving exparte award.