M/S MAHAJAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award which was put in execution was contested by the respondent on a plea that there existed no award in the eye of law and it was not executable. The contention was that the agreement contained no reference to arbitration and consequently, there existed no arbitration agreement. The Executing Court rejected this objection and allowed for further process of execution to follow on a decision taken by a person who claimed authority as Chairman of Labour Contractor Union.

(2.) The agreement between parties is on file and I have gone through the file made on 23.09.2010. It is cryptic in just two clauses that the cost of construction had been fixed at Rs. 50,000.00 and he would complete the work before 20.10.2010. A subsequent agreement made on 12.12.2010 refers to the specifications of the works and sets out the schedule of payments. This document contains no reference to any arbitration agreement.

(3.) I put it across the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent as to how any award could be passed by a person claiming to be an Arbitrator. The could says that when a claim was made before an Arbitrator, the petitioner sought for copies of claims and did not later appear before the Arbitrator. This, according to him, must mean that there was an arbitral agreement. The counsel would read to me Sec. 7(4)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 1996 Act) to elicit that such an agreement must be inferred. The said Sec. 7(4)(c) of 1996 Act is reproduced as follows:-