SANTOSH KUMAR ACHARYA Vs. RATNAKAR SWAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is order dtd. 23/12/2022 made by the arbitral Tribunal in directing on provision in Sec. 26, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, at instance of opposite party-claimant in the reference. He submits, the direction for appointment of expert evaluator was allowed, with consequential direction upon parties to suggest names.

(2.) He draws attention to claim made by opposite party and his client's counter claim as respondent in the reference. He demonstrates therefrom the claim and counter claim are simply money claims. As such expanding scope of the reference by including evaluation of assets would expose his client to risk of an award being made beyond four corners of the reference.

(3.) Mr. Panda, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party and relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in SBP and Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd., reported in (2005) 8 SCC 618, paragraph 45 in SCC Online print. Last sentence in the paragraph is reproduced below.