UNION OF INDIA Vs. GEORGE VINCENT AYAMMPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeals have been filed under Sec. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the common order of the learned Single Judge dismissing O.P.Nos.742 and 743 of 2007 dtd. 12/3/2012 filed by the appellant under Sec. 34 of the said Act.

(2.) A dispute arose between the appellant and the first respondent with regard to the terms of two contracts entered into between them for the construction of Head Post Office and Post Masters' Quarters at Postal Staff quarters, Thirukovilur. The dispute was referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by the appellant in respect of the contract which formed the subject matter of the award No.MJ/ARB/200/2 which was challenged in O.P.No.742 of 2007. The first respondent made claims under ten heads. The appellant made counter claim under three heads. The Arbitrator after hearing the parties allowed claim numbers 3, 4 and 10 made by the first respondent and counter claim numbers 1 and 2 in favour of the appellant. The Arbitrator rejected all other claims by the parties. In respect of the contract which formed the subject matter of the award no.MJ/ARB/200/1 which was challenged in O.P.No.743 of 2007, the first respondent made claims under eleven heads. The Arbitrator after hearing the parties allowed four claims and one counter claim in favour of the appellant. The Arbitrator rejected all the other claims made by the parties. The first respondent accepted both the awards of the Arbitrator and did not challenge them. The appellant challenged the awards in O.P.Nos.742 and 743 of 2007.

(3.) Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant contended that the awards passed by the Arbitrator was against public policy and therefore had to be set aside. The first respondent herein contended that the appellant had not made out any ground to show as to how the awards were against public policy and that there was no need to interfere with the awards passed by the Arbitrator. The learned Single Judge considered the rival contentions and found on facts that the awards passed by the Arbitrator was reasonable and that the appellant had not made out any ground to interfere with the awards. In any event, the appellant had not established that the awards were against public policy and dismissed the petitions.