UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prays for quashing judgment and decree dated 16.3.2004 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh making the award dated 1.2.1994 as the Rule of the Court.

(2.) ON the basis of certain differences which have arisen between the parties a Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Zone was appointed as a sole arbitrator in terms of arbitration Clause contained in a contract bearing No. CWE/PAT-10/899-90 dated 7.7.1989 duly entered between the parties. The contract was for making provision of Mosquito proofing for OTM and marriage accommodation at Nabha. On reference the arbitrator entertained the reference on 28.8.1993. Under the various heads of claim, the arbitrator had awarded a total amount of Rs. 1,58,000/- along with 12% interest for pre-reference period @ 12% per annum pendente lite interest from 29.8.1993 to the date of award @ 12% per annum on all amounts awarded in favour of the contractor and future interest @ 12% per annum till the payment of the awarded amount. The petition under Section 14(2) read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for brevity 'the Act') was filed by the Contractor-respondent. The Civil Judge sustained the objections raised by the petitioner and the award dated 1.2.1994 was set aside. The case was remitted to the Arbitrator under Section 16 of the Act to decide the claim of the parties afresh. However, the contractor filed an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge. After examining the whole record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Addl. District Judge concluded that there was no legal infirmity in the award as sufficient reasons have been recorded by the arbitrator as per the requirement of amendment No. 41 of IAFW 2249. The learned Addl. District Judge has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court delivered by a Constitution Bench in the case of Goa, Daman and Diu Housing Board v. Ramakant V.P. Darvetkar, (1991)4 Supreme Court Cases 293. The view taken is that the Supreme Court in that judgment had sustained a similar type of award overruling the objections. In this regard, para 12 of the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge is relevant and deserves to be quoted which reads as under :-

(3.) MR . S.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the contractor has supported the view taken by the learned Addl. District Judge by submitting that a perusal of the opening para of the award would show that the arbitrator has examined all aspects including the evidence put forth before him during the hearing by way of oral submissions and documents. The learned counsel has further pointed out that if award is examined claim-wise, various claims have been considered and awarded after due consideration of the contention raised before the arbitrator. The arbitrator is a person of high credentials being a Chief Engineer and the amounts awarded are modest and well considered. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Ramakant V.P. Darvetkar (supra) and argued that there is not even a whisper by the petitioner that the arbitrator has misconducted himself or the contractor has procured the award by some unfair practice. In the absence of such allegations and the presence of reasons given by the arbitrator, no exception could be taken to the view of the learned Addl. District Judge.