C&C CONSTRUCTIONS LTD Vs. SIROCCO INFRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. Alka Sarin, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Divya Sharma, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent. By consent, the matter is taken on board for final disposal.

(2.) THIS is an appeal under S.37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") against the order dated 13th August, 2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali under S.34 of the Act dismissing the appellant's objections to the award dated 22nd March, 2011 passed by the sole arbitrator appointed by the appellant, who was its employee. The appellant is the principal contractor engaged in the business of construction of roads, highways, runways etc. throughout the country. The respondent is sub -contractor appointed to execute specified work under a written contract.

(3.) THE challenge is two fold; it is firstly contended that the sole arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings and has acted against all recognized canons of law by misreading documents and drawing inferences from them contrary to the contents of the documents. To this end it is argued that reliance has been placed on documents which the arbitrator himself had declared as dubious and unreliable during the course of the arbitration proceedings. The second ground of attack is that the arbitrator is biased and was removed from the service of the appellant -Company after making the award. The dispute relates to the Tepla -Kharar Project under contract agreement duly signed by the parties which contained the arbitration clause. On merits, the dispute relates to measurement, calculations and payments for work done. The award exhaustively settles the disputed claims between the parties in favour of the present respondent, the claimant. The other ancillary issue on merits revolves around whether work was stopped or terminated between contractor and the sub -contractor. The two material dates are 30th September 2008 and 21st April, 2009 and the hoary silence falling in between. The other material fact debated before me is the respondent's e -mail dated 18th November, 2008 which appends calculations of work done and the amounts found due and payable as an attachment. The arbitrator analyzed the case before him and arrived at conclusions which are best reflected in his own words and these are: -