STATE OF ORISSA & ANOTHER Vs. DANDASI SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing the Arbitration Appeal, State as appellant has assailed the order dated 16.2.2004 passed in Misc. Case No.503/2001 and the decree dated 24.2.2004 in O.S. No.635/1998 and further to set aside the award dated 19.8.1998 passed in Arbitration Case No.56C of 1984.

(2.) Short background involving the case is that involving contract agreement no.928 F-2 of 1981-82 on 27.11.1981, the Contractor approached the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Bhubaneswar for appointment of Arbitrator and to refer the dispute for adjudication and decision thereon. On being satisfied, the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Bhubaneswar referred the matter at the instance of the Contractor for adjudication of the dispute between the parties by the Arbitration Tribunal. The Tribunal entertaining the reference, vide ARBA No.56C/84 and upon considering the counter claim at the instance of the State filed before the Arbitration Tribunal during pendency of the aforesaid arbitration proceeding, passed the award making the contractor entitling Rs.3,89,356.00 along with other directions contained therein at the same time objecting the counter claim for there being no reference of the same by competent court of law. The Contractor, vide O.S.No.635/98 approached the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Bhubaneswar to make the award as rule of the Court. At the same time appearing therein present appellants being the miscellaneous petitioners therein filed application under Sec. 30 read with Sec. 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside of the award involved therein. The rule of the court proceeding as well as the application for setting aside the award being considered, the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Bhubaneswar by order dated 16.2.2004 while refusing to entertain Misc. Case No.503/2001 intended for setting aside the award by further order made the decree involving the award.

(3.) Challenging the award as well as the orders indicated herein above and the decree as well, Sri Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the appellants contended that the Contractor in fact did not execute the work in time even and even his attempt for extending the time also failed. The Contractor even did not respond to the call of the State for measurement of the work, which he has already undertaken. On the premises that there involves callous attitude of the Contractor, the State had to entrust the work to another agency and the work was completed incurring loss of Rs.24,35,954.00, which amount was recoverable from the Contractor. It is in the above background of the facts, learned Additional Standing Counsel urged that there is no consideration of the material aspect by the Tribunal. Further the Civil Court also failed in appreciating the grounds raised therein. Sri Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel taking this Court to the grounds mentioned in the Appeal contended that the State has good grounds requiring this Court to interfere with both the award as well as the order refusing to entertain the application under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the award passed by the Arbitration Tribunal and the decree made involving the award.