NORTHERN COALFIELDSLIMITED Vs. RAJKISHAN AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING dissatisfied with the decision dated 21-4-1999 rendered by the learned District Judge, Sidhi, in Civil Suit No. 5-B/97 the appellant, Northern coalfield Limited, has preferred this appeal for setting aside the same. At the very outset, it is pertinent to state that the appeal has been nomenclature to be one under Section 39 (1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1940 Act') and the said facet shall be dealt with by us in detail at a later stage whether the aforesaid statute would govern the appeal or the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as 'the 1996 Act') would apply to the fact situation.

(2.) THE factual score as has been portrayed and is perceptible from the impugned decision and the pleadings brought on record is that the respondent/company namely, M/s Rajkishan and Company, filed an application under Sections 14 (2), 17 and 29 of the 1940 Act on 23-6-1997 before the Court below for making the award dated 29-5-1997 passed by the sole Arbitrator as the Rule of Court and to pass a decree in that regard. The facts put forth before the learned District Judge are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') had entered into an agreement with the present appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the owner') for construction of certain quarters on 4-5-1989 and on the basis of the terms and conditions of the tender as well as the agreement the petitioner/company started the construction work. The work in question was to be completed within 15 months as per the stipulation in the agreement. As prescribed in the agreement the work order was scheduled to be issued on 22-1-1989 and the work was required to be completed by end of 21-4-1990. As pleaded, despite the said population the work orders were issued on 19-7-1989, 25-9-1989 and 19-7-1989 in as phase wise manner, as a consequence of which there was delay in carrying out of the work. As the work in question was not completed within the time frame, i. e. , by 21-4-1990 the owner rescinded the agreement and awarded the contract in favour of another company. In addition to this the amount which was to be paid to the claimant/company was not paid and the machineries were seized. A dispute arose and the petitioner took recourse to Clause 9 of the agreement and prayed for appointment of the sole Arbitrator for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute that had arisen. The appellant/company appointed one Mr. P. O. Haridas on 6-4-1995 as the sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties passed an award on 9-5-1997 for a sum of rs. 52,00,385/- and further awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the amount was paid or till the date of decree which was earlier. The Arbitrator intimated the said factum to the parties. The said aspect came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 1-6-1997 and on receipt of the due intimation it preferred an application for making the award the Rule of the Court.

(3.) AFTER receipt of the application the Court below called for the award and the connected papers from the learned Arbitrator.