STATE OF GOA Vs. K HASSAINER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division Margao in Special Civil Suit (Arbitration) No.63/94/A and Civil Misc. Application No.50/94/A dated 16.1.1995, whereby the objections filed by the appellant to the Award made by the learned Arbitrator dated 27.1.1994 were dismissed and the Award was made rule of the Court. The said order is impugned, inter alia , on the grounds that the findings are perverse as the learned Civil Judge has failed to take into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raipur Development Authority etc., v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors etc., reported in A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1426 , wherein the Constitution Bench has dealt with whether reasons are required to be given, that the learned Judge has rejected the counter claim of the appellant thereby failing to exercise jurisdiction, that the learned Civil Judge, has failed to appreciate the evidence and that the findings given by the arbitrator, are perverse and without due application of mind.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts leading to the appeal are as follows : The respondent was awarded work of providing and laying and jointing A.C. Pressure Pipe Distribution Network at Chicalim by work order dated 26/4/1983. Certain disputes and differences arose between the parties and Arbitration Suit No.53/89/B was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division at Margao . Shri . J. S. Pinto, Retired Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. was appointed as arbitrator by the Court. The Arbitrator made his Award dated 27.1.1994, whereby the appellants were directed to pay to the respondents a sum of Rs.2,88,882/ only. The said award was challenged by the appellants by filing objections dated 29.3.1994, which were registered as Civil Misc. Appln . NO.50/1994/A in Special Civil Suit No.63/94/A before the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Margao . By impugned order dated 16.1.1995, the learned trial Judge, dismissed the said objections and confirmed the Award. The appeal is from the said order dated 16.1.1995, challenging the order rejecting the objections to the Award.

(3.) IT is contended by learned Advocate for the appellant that the grounds impugning the order of the lower Court and consequently, the award of the learned Arbitrator are within the scope of Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. It is contended that the grounds made out are within the parameters of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raipur Development Authority, etc. v/s. M/s. Chakhamol Contractors, etc., (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the question whether reasons are required to be given, as follows :