UNION OF INDIA Vs. MEHTA CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal of the Union of India from the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 18th October, 1994, rejecting the Arbitration Petition of the appellants for setting aside the award of the arbitrator.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly stated are as follows. The appellants entered into an agreement with the respondents, M/s. Mehta Construction Co. , for the construction of the G. M. T. Office Block at Cadell Road, Dadar, Bombay. The value of the work was Rs. 2,06,97,162. 35. The contract was executed by and between the parties for execution of the above work. Under the terms of the contract, the work was to be completed by 20th February, 1983. However, the time for completion was extended by the appellants upto 20th August, 1985 and the work was also completed by the respondents by that time. During the progress of the work, payments were made by the appellants to the respondents from time to time. After the completion of the work, the respondents by their letter dated 21st January, 1987 raised several disputes and claims and the same having not been settled by the appellants, requested the Chief Engineer (Construction), North West Zone, to refer the said disputes and claims for arbitration under clause 25 of the contract. Accordingly, the disputes were referred to one Mr. J. Pal, Superintending Engineer (Civil), Telecom Civil Circle, Bhopal, as the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator gave his award on 12th June, 1989. By the said award, a sum of Rs. 6,37,472/- was awarded by the arbitrator in favour of the respondents together with interest at the rate of 18% from 12th September, 1989 i. e. from three months after the date of the award till final payment. The above amount awarded by the arbitrator comprised of various amounts awarded under the claims No. 1,2,10,12,21,24 and 25. The appellants challenged the above award before the learned Single Judge by filing an arbitration petition and prayed that the award should be declared null and void and set aside.

(3.) IN the arbitration petition, the appellants had prayed that the entire award should be set aside. At the time of hearing before the learned Single Judge, the challenge was confined to the award in so far as it pertained to the amounts awarded against claims No. 1,2,10,12,24 and 25. The learned Judge considered the submissions of the appellants in regard to each of the above claims and came to the conclusion that no case has been made out by the appellants for interfering with the award in regard to any of the claims mentioned above. The learned Single Judge observed that the appellants, in fact, were seeking to challenge the reasons or the reasonableness of the reasons given by the arbitrator in support of the award. The learned Single Judge held that it was not open for the parties to the arbitration to challenge the award of the arbitrator on these grounds. The learned Single Judge, therefore, did not find any merit in any of the contentions of the appellants and hence dismissed the arbitration petition and made the award rule of the Court.