GOLAK CHANDRA ROY Vs. SECRETARY IRRIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Bhubaneswar in O. S. No. 231 of 1982 (I) by which the award of an Arbitrator has been set aside.

(2.) THE appellant -claimant was entrusted with the work 'Excavation of Surplus Channel of Kakalbaki M. I. Project with construction of Grade Walls and Energy Dissipation Blocks' under an agreement bearing No. 11 F -2 of 1977 -78. The said agreement was executed between the claimant and the Executive Engineer. Minor Irrigation Division, Phulbani. A dispute within the meaning of Arbitration Act having arisen between the parties Shri B. S. Patnaik, Retired District Judge, was appointed as the Arbitrator.The Arbitrator entertained the claim petition and counter there to and after giving opportunities to the parties for substantiating their respective cases passed an award for Rs. 5,55,550/ - in favour of the claimant appellant and further granted interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum with effect from 3. 4. 1979 till the date of payment or the date of decree whichever is earlier. On receipt of the award the parties were noticed to file their objection against it, if any. The present respondents filed an objection which was registered as Misc. Case No 635 of 1982(A). The objection was mainly on the following grounds : (i) There is error of law apparent on the face of the award. (ii) The Arbicrator had no jurisdiction to entertain claims beyond the agreement. (iii) The original agreement was for Rs. 3,16, 129/ - which amount had already been received by the claimant. The exaggerated claim made by the claimant before the Arbitrator was without any basis and the Arbitrator has passed the impugned award without taking into consideration the agreement, measurement books and other documents filed by the respondents and without considering the submissions made on their behalf. It has been also stated that passing of an unreasoned award by the Arbitrator in the aforesaid circumstances if an error or defect appearing on the face of the award.

(3.) THE learred Subordinate Judge, after hearing the parties through their counsel, came to the conclusion that in the given circumstances the Arbitrator was not competent to give a lump sum and unreasoned award for such a huge amount which exceeds the contractual amount. He also held that an unreasoned award for a huge amount which does not incorporate the relevant documents and papers must be taken to be a case where the award has to be set aside as having errors on the face of it. Accordingly he allowed the aforesaid Misc. Case and set aside the award and disposed of the suit accordingly. It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been directed.