K BALACHANDRAN NAIR Vs. M RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 15th October, 1996, in connection with FMAT No. 3767 of 1996, passed by the learned trial Judge, in connection with the C.O. No. 106(W) of 1996, where the trial Judge, after substituting his own decision reversed the order of the learned Arbitrator on the count that the arbitration proceedings suffered from jurisdictional error as the Arbitrator was denuded of jurisdiction to assume power to adjudicate upon the dispute. This is all sore in the litigation which has pushed the appellant to this court.

(2.) Before embarking on the controversy in dispute for decision of the dispute, it is worthwhile to get a grip to the core controversy, and, therefore, the narration of the facts would be the crying need of the hour, lest the whole judgment would be submerged into futility. Grasping the facts for appreciation, in our estimation, will pay the way to decide the dispute. It looms large that much water had flown into the ganges when the parties fell out against each other to resolve the dispute through the multiple corridors of the writ courts. The appellant, having lost before the learned trial Judge, has now approached this court for redressal of his grievances as he has been made to be a scapegot.

(3.) Now a few facts :- One Mr. Rajendran, however, was awarded a contract by the Andaman Public Works Department, shortly he described as APWD for the sake of brevity, the object being to construct 5000 metric tonnes capacity godown for the supply department of Andaman and Nicobar Administration at Dollygunj at an estimated cost of Rs. 29,71,209/- only.