STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS Vs. KHEMOHAND AGARWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under Section 39(vi) of the Arbitration Act, the Appellants seek to assail the order of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar refusing to set aside the award passed by the Arbitrator.

(2.) The Respondent, a contractor, was entrusted with the work "Excavation of One Main canal from R.D. 15.636 K.M. to 19.376 K.M." under agreement No. 19-F-2-of 1977-78 of Bolangir Irrigation Division. The agreement was entered into between the Respondent and the Executive Engineer Bolangir Irrigation Division Appellant No. 3, On behalf of the State Government. Some disputes relating to the aforesaid work having arisen between the parties, Shri G.S. Patnaik, a District Judge, who was then the Chairman of the Arbitration Tribunal, was appointed as Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties. Before the said Arbitrator the Respondent filed statement of claims, claiming Rs. 13,41,613.00 under 20 different statement of claim. Appellant No. 3 in his written statement denied each item of claim laid by the Respondent. The Arbitrator passed an unreasoned award allowing the claims of the Respondent to the extent of Rs. 7,13,000.00. The award is quoted hereunder.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge on consideration of the petitions filed by the parties refused to set aside the award. The said order is impugned in this appeal. As it appears from the discussions in the impugned order, the main grounds on which the court below based his decision are that the Arbitrator has passed an unreasoned, single sentence a ward making no reference to any particular document or evidence therein and that the Arbitrator has, mentioned in the award that he passed the same after perusal of the statement of claims and counter claims and after consideration of the documents filed by the parties and the arguments advanced by counsel for both the parties. On these grounds the court repelled the contention raised on behalf of the Appellants that the award is based on no evidence and is vitiated due to misconduct of the Arbitrator.