UNION OF INDIA Vs. MEHAR SINGH AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by Union of India and others, hereinafter described as "the appellants", directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, dated 14.5.1998. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial Court dismissed the objections of the appellants and made award of the arbitrator a rule of the Court. It was held that the respondent-contractor was entitled to future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of award till realisation of the amount.

(2.) The relevant facts are that Sh. K.D. Bali had filed award with the learned Civil Judge at Amritsar. Notice of the same was issued. The appellants Union of India and others filed objections. It was alleged that the award suffers from error apparent on the face of the record. It was contended that the award has been given without giving opportunity of being heard. The arbitrator could be appointed by the Chief Engineer but the respondent- contractor moved the Court under section 8 of the Arbitration Act. During the pendency of the petition, Chief Engineer had appointed an arbitrator. No other arbitrator could be appointed. The Court appointed Sh. K.D. Bali as arbitrator. The revision petition filed by the appellants was dismissed by this Court and further Special Leave Petition also failed. The appellants contended that they have never accepted the appointment of Sh. K.D. Bali and they requested him to stay the proceedings. Furthermore, the Executive Engineer was not authorised to represent the Union of India. The arbitrator acted in a mala fide manner. The award was further assailed alleging that the arbitrator awarded 25% extra on account of increase in the market rate on the items which were to be supplied by the department. This could not have been so done. The extra payment so given were also alleged to be not correct.

(3.) Reply was filed. It was alleged that the Court cannot reappraise the evidence. It was further pointed out that once Special Leave Petition was dismissed, Shri K.D. Bali could act as arbitrator. The contention of the appellants to the contrary were controverted. It was denied that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application.