UNION OF INDIA Vs. D.D. CHAMPATIRAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant (Union of India). He submits, the reference was conducted such that there was misconduct by the Tribunal. His client was not heard inasmuch as the contentions in defence and counter claims could not be properly put forward in the reference. His client had petitioned for setting aside the award under sec. 34 in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court below erred in not appreciating his client's grievance, which is why the appeal.

(2.) On query from Court Mr. Mohanty submits, one awarded claim was set aside by the Court below. On further query from Court Mr. Sangneria appearing on behalf of respondent submits, cross objection was not preferred by his client.

(3.) Perused impugned order dtd. 10/4/2012. In paragraph-9 there are reasons given for satisfaction of the Court below that there was no misconduct by the Tribunal.