TIRATH ENGINEERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.02.2019 passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as 'the lower Court') in Arbitration Petition No. 4 of 2006 filed by the appellant (original petitioner) under Section 34 of the said Act.

(2.) It appears that the appellant was awarded the work of "civil and structural works for passenger cum goods lift at HWP (Baroda)" vide the order dated 10.01.2002 by the General Manager of the respondents. It appears that during the course of execution of the contract in question, some disputes had arisen between the parties and therefore, the same were referred to the Arbitrator for adjudication, as there was an arbitration clause in the agreement entered into between the parties. The petitioner had filed the statement of claims, to which the respondents had filed their reply as also filed their counterclaims. The sole Arbitrator after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, made award on 28.09.2009 partly allowing the claim of the petitioner - appellant to the extent of Rs. 48,681/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellant - petitioner had filed the petition under Section 34 of the said Act before the Lower Court, which has been rejected by the Lower Court vide the impugned order dated 12.02.2019. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Manav Mehta for the appellant vehemently submitted that the Arbitrator had failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its right perspective, inasmuch as while rejecting the claim No. 2.2 with regard to Breaking of Big Mass of RCC works in foundation, the Arbitrator has observed that the rate paid was mutually agreed between the parties, however as a matter of fact, there was no such mutual agreement between the parties. He also submitted that the claim No. 2.3 with regard to Broken RCC disposal and other claims have also been wrongly rejected by the Arbitrator, and that the Lower Court without appreciating the said contentions, has simply confirmed the award made by the Arbitrator. Pressing into service the provisions contained in Section 34(2)(b)(iii) of the said Act, he submitted that the award being in conflict with the public policy and in conflict with the most basic notions of morality and justice, the same was required to be modified and the claims of the appellant were required to be granted by the Lower Court.