UNION OF INDIA Vs. BIR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award which was passed by the Arbitrator under the Arbitration Act of 1940 was made the rule of court on an application filed under Ss. 14 and 17 by the contractor by the court at Amritsar. The objections taken by the Union was that the tender was floated at Chandimandir and the Arbitrator also was conducting his proceedings within the jurisdiction of Panchkula. The objection was that only the acceptance of tender was received by the contractor at Amritsar and no part of cause of action arose at Amritsar. There was also an objection that as per the contractual term 11(c), there was no scope for claiming any enhancement of rates for delay in completion of work even if it had arisen on account of sortie factors contributed by the Union. The court of first instance rejected both these objections and made the award the rule of the court. The appellate court also confirmed the same. The counsel states that the place of service of acceptance of tender condition ought not to be taken as a court of jurisdiction. Even if I may allow this objection to prevail in terms of the judgment rendered and cited before me in Interstate Equipment (India) Private Limited v/s. Bharat Aluminium Company Limited : 2004 (1) ArbiLR 456, I will be loathe to interfere on an issue of jurisdiction for an arbitral award unless substantial prejudice is shown. The Union which had able assistance for representation throughout India ought to have taken the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary objection and got it transferred to the proper court of jurisdiction. I will not find this to be as appropriate and adequate ground for consideration in revision.

(2.) It is also urged that the contractual term regarding the scope for claiming damage or higher rates for delay has been considered by the Supreme Court in Ramnath International Construction Private Limited v/s. Union of India and another : AIR 2007 (SC) 509 and they have relieved the Union of any claim on account of bar contained in the contractual term. The same clause has been considered by the Supreme Court to a different result and this court had an occasion in Union of India and another v/s. M/s. Prabhat Kumar & Brothers and other in Civil Revision No. 7294 of 2010, decided on 30.04.2015, referring to all the decisions in this context and upholding the interpretation by the court below. I decline to make any intervention in this regard. I do not think the grounds urged now can be supported in the light of the judgment referred to above. The orders passed by the courts below are confirmed and the revision petitions are dismissed.