STATE OF ORISSA Vs. R N PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, who by the impugned judgment made the Award of the Arbitrator a rule of the Court, rejecting the objections filed by the State.

(2.) THE respondent is a contractor who entered into an agreement with appellant No. 1 for laying of pipes in the Fertiliser Project, Public Health Division, Talcher. As certain dispute arose, on an application being filed, Shri Justice H. Mohapatra, a retired Judge of the Patna High Court, was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator gave an Award for a sum of Rs. 9,24,364/ -together with interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum with effect from 21 -3 -1976, that is, the due date of payment. After an Award was passed the claimant filed an application for making the Award a rule of the Court and the State filed abjection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the Award. There is no dispute that the Award is a no reasoned Award and, therefore, the scope of interference with the same by the Civil Court is very limited. Before the Subordinate Judge, seven objections were raised, but the learned Subordinate Judge did not find any substance in any of those objections since according to him the Award being a lump sum amount and the Arbitrator having not assigned any reason for the same, the Court cannot interfere with the same by making a probe into the mental process of the Arbitrator to find out the reasons.

(3.) COMING to the first contention, I find that there was no privity of contract between the claimant -contractor and the Indian Hume Pipes. The dispute in question was in relation to the agreement between the Contractor and the State and that dispute had been referred for arbitration. There Is, therefore, no substance, in the argument of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the Contractor had received the said amount from the Indian Hume Pipes, the second aspect of the said contention is also devoid of force since it has been found from the order sheet of the learned Arbitrator that though an application was filed before the Arbitrator to summon the officer of the Indian Hume Pipes, but that petition was not pressed and in the order -sheet itself, the concerned Executive Engineer as well as the counsel appearing for the State also gave their signatures. In that view of the matter, no grievance can be made by the State on that score and accordingly, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate.