PREMJI KUMBHABHAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Lower Assam Districts at Gauhati setting aside an award given by the Umpire Mr. P.C. Chaudhury, retired Accountant General, Bengal. The case of the Plaintiff Dominion of India was that under a contract dated the 28th January 1943 the old Bengal and Assam Railway -gave orders to one Kumbha Mawji father of the present Appellant to manufacture and supply stone boulders and ballast from the Chutiapara Quarry. Under the agreement the Appellant had to manufacture and supply six lakhs cubic feet of stone boulders and three lakhs cubic feet of ballast. Subsequently it is contended by the Appellant that the contractor manufactured additional four lakhs cubic feet of boulders and one lakh cubic feet of ballast against the said agreement. The dispute arose between the parties. It is not disputed that the contractor has been paid at the rate given in the contract for the manufacture and supply of the original quantity of bail act and boulders under the agreement. The dispute was with regard to the enhanced rate claimed by the contractor and with regard to the manufacture of additional boulders and ballast which the contractor said that he had manufactured and had supplied to the Railway. The Railway said that the additional supply forms no part of the agreement.

(2.) THERE was some difference between the two arbitrators, and the Umpire then gave an award under which he granted a sum of Rs. 3,67,000/ - to the contractor as the price of the boulders and ballast supplied at the enhanced rate. By another award he awarded a sum of Rs. 83,000/ - as the price of the additional supply of four lakhs cubic feet of boulders and one lakhs cubic feet of ballast at enhanced rate. The Railway was not satisfied with this award and an application was filed on the 10th August 1949 for direction to the Umpire to file the award with a view to enable the Railway to file an objection to the award. After the notice an objection was filed on the 28th October 1949. wherein the validity of the award was challenged. The court below has accepted the contention of the Railway and set aside the award.

(3.) THE next point is that even assuming that the court had jurisdiction to enter into the question of the validity of the award suo motu, in the present case, it cannot be said that the award was without jurisdiction. It cannot be doubted that if the award is assailed on the ground that the arbitrator has no jurisdiction to give an award inasmuch as the dispute decided by him did not form part of the agreement itself, the court has got power to set aside such an award suo motu. No objection need be filed by any of the parties to the arbitration. Section 14 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') provides for the filing of the award. Section 16 of the Act provides that the court may from time to time remit the award on any matter referred to arbitration to the arbitrators or umpire for consideration upon such terms as it thinks fit. Section 17 of the Act provides that where the court sees no cause to remit the award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration or to set aside the award, the Court shall, after the time for making an application to set aside the award, has expired, or such application having been made, after refusing it, proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award, and upon the judgment so pronounced a decree shall follow and no appeal shall lie from such decree except on the ground that it is in excess of, or not otherwise in accordance with, the award.