STATE OF U P Vs. TEXMACO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge/ Judge, Small Causes Courts, Bijnor dated 26th July, 1993 in Original Suit No. 193 of 1991, M/s Taxmaco v. State of U. P. in the capacity of Civil Judge arising out of an award dated 3rd August, 1989 of Justice L. P. Nigam, former Judge of Allahabad High Court, as Umpire, which was challenged by the State for setting aside the same but ultimately failed and the decree was passed on the award, is under challenge.

(2.) AS per the erstwhile Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter in short called as the 'act') an award can be challenged in the Court of law under sections 30 and 33 of the said Act. When section 30 is subject, section 33 is procedural. As per section 30 of the Act, there are three conditions for the purpose of challenging the award, as under:

(3.) OUT of the aforesaid grounds, ground Nos. (b) and (c) are admittedly not under challenge hereunder. The remaining issue of misconduct of the Arbitrator/umpire was the basic point for consideration by the Court, where such application was filed in the form of suit challenging the arbitration award. From the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Judge, it appears that three issues were framed, which are as follows (as per the English version supplied by the contesting parties):