R.C. SAXENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Sec. 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act of 1996') has been filed arising out of the Order dtd. 17/12/2011 passed by the District Court, whereby the District Court has rejected the application of the appellant under Sec. 34 of Act of 1996. The appellant- claimant had certain claims against the Railways in the matter of construction of 50 bedded hospitals at Nishadpura, Bhopal, the work for which was awarded to the appellant. Certain disputes arose between the appellant and the railway authorities acting through Deputy Chief Engineer (construction), Bhopal. The appellant had made claims to the tune of Rs.1.04 crores against the Railway Authorities and the arbitrators have awarded an amount of Rs.43,906.00 towards the aforesaid claims.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contractor while pressing his appeal has taken a singular ground that the Arbitration Tribunal while deciding the claims of the appellant contractor has passed the award in a hurried manner without granting proper opportunity of hearing to the Appellant and therefore, the award is in contravention with fundamental policy of Indian law, which contemplates providing proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties to the litigation, which has been violated by the Arbitral Tribunal in the present case and further it is in conflict with the most basic notions of justice in as much as the appellant claimant was not properly heard by the Arbitral Tribunal and the Arbitral Tribunal has hurriedly wound up the arbitration proceedings and in place of claims of Rs.1.04 crores, has awarded claims of Rs.43,906.00.

(3.) To elaborate the submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the disputes arose between the parties and as per the provisions of the Act of 1996 as were prevailing in the terms of the agreement, the matter was referred to arbitration comprising of three Railway Officers, out of which one had retired during course of the arbitration proceedings and the arbitration proceedings continued by the same three officers. It is contended that the arbitrators had carried out first meeting of arbitration on 5/2/2005 and then the proceedings were conducted for some time by the Arbitration Tribunal, but after sometime, i.e. after the year 2005, the Arbitration Tribunal did not fix any meeting for arbitration and therefore, the Appellant had filed WP No.4027 of 2007 before this Court and had raised a grievance before this Court that the matter has been heard almost finally by the Arbitration Tribunal, but final decision is awaited since last more than two years and this Court vide order dtd. 25/2/2008 had directed the Arbitral Tribunal to conclude the proceedings and render decision expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Thereafter, the proceedings were again taken up by the Tribunal in a hurried manner and without properly issuing any notice to the appellant, ex-parte proceedings were conducted thereafter and final award was passed on 27/8/2008 in a very hurried manner just to anyhow dispose of the case in terms of directions of this Court in WP No.4027of 2007. Therefore, it is a case where there has been no effective adjudication by the Arbitral Tribunal and it passed an ex-parte award against the appellant, who was not given any opportunity to appear before the Tribunal on the final three dates before the Tribunal and this has resulted in failure of justice.