STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BANSIDHAR BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 39 -VI of the Arbitration Act, 1948 (Sic.) by the State of Orissa being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 18 -3 -1993 passed by the then Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar dismissing Misc. Case No. 261 of 1991 filed by the State and making an award passed by the Arbitration Tribunal a Rule of the Court.

(2.) THE Respondent, a contractor, had entered into an agreement with the Appellant -State for construction of a Dispensary building for the ESI together with staff quarters at Choudwar under an agreement bearing No. 26/F -2 of 1977 -78. It was agreed upon among the parties that the said construction work would be completed within twelve months. During continuance of the construction work certain disputes with regard to payments having arisen, in consonance with the terms of the agreement, the said disputes were referred to the Arbitration Tribunal under Section 41A of the Act (Orissa Amendment) for adjudication. The Arbitration Tribunal entered into the reference and after issuing notice to the parties calling upon them to file their respective statements of claim, adjudicated the disputes and passed an Award on 30 -5 -1991 for Rs. 69,542.56. The said Award was filed before the Court below on 2 -7 -1991 and O.S. No. 146 of. 1991 was registered. Notices were issued by the Court below to the parties. The Respondent -contractor did not file any objection to the Award and prayed that the same might be made a Rule of the Court. The Appellant -State, however, filed a Petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act which was registered as Misc. Case No. 261 of 1991 challenging the Award of the Arbitration Tribunal inter alia on the grounds that the Award was arbitrary, illegal and without any basis. Further, the Tribunal had not properly decided the claim items and had awarded exorbitant amounts and that he had no jurisdiction to award interest which was beyond the scope of the agreement.

(3.) (Sic) Though several submissions were raised before this Court, Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate only stressed upon the submission that the reference made to the Tribunal itself was unjust, illegal and not maintainable as the claimant had accepted payment in question as per the final bill without any objection. Several other grounds have been taken in the Memo of Appeal challenging the Award and also the Judgment of the Court below.