STATE OF U P Vs. DURGA PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal from order was earlier allowed on 13. 11. 1991 by Hon'ble Om Prakash, J. (as his lordship then was) since retired, without hearing any one on behalf of plaintiff-respondent as no one had appeared on his behalf. Thereafter re-hearing application was filed which was allowed by me on 21. 5. 2008.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties on the merit of the appeal. This first appeal from order is directed against order dated 19. 7. 1982 passed by civil Judge, Ghazipur in O. S. No. 6 of 1982-Durga Prasad v. State of Uttar pradesh. Through the said order application of defendant-appellant for making a reference of the dispute to the Arbitrator as provided by Clause 16 of the agreement was rejected. The Court below rejected the contention of the plaintiff that the dispute was not covered by Clause 16 of the agreement. However, dispute was refused to be referred to the Arbitrator on two very strange grounds. The first ground was that specified Arbitrator was Superintending Engineer as he was from the defendant's department hence he was likely to give award in favour of the defendant. It was further mentioned that the order of arbitrator/superintending Engineer was to be final and binding upon the plaintiff hence it was arbitrary and in the nature of penal clause. The other reason given is that references often yield no positive results and on the other hand it is wastage of valuable time etc. of all concerned. Both the reasons are wholly untenable in law. If the view taken by the Court below is accepted and approved then the entire arbitration law will fall down. Normally in the agreement in between Government and private contractor some officer of department is nominated as Arbitrator. In any case as the plaintiff agreed for arbitration by signing the agreement hence he was bound by that.

(3.) THE speculation that award would be invariably in favour of the department was wholly unwarranted. The view of the Court below that the award would be final is also not correct. Under Arbitration Act if the arbitrator has mis-directed himself then the award is liable to be set aside by the Court.