MOLAN LAL JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant and respondent entered into a contract by which the appellant, a partnership firm, agreed to construct some buildings for the respondent. THE contract was reduced into writing and signed by both the parties and was numbered as CA No. CECZ/RAN /10 of 71-72. During the execution of the contract disputes between the parties with regard to the execution of the contract arose. In terms of clause 70 of the agreement, the disputes were referred to a sole Arbitrate. Arbitrator gave his award by which he allowed some of the claims of the appellant and rejected some. THE award was filed in court. THE respondent filed objection to the award and that was registered as title Suit No. 84 of 1977. THE court below after hearing the parties set aside the award with regard to some of the claims and confirmed it with regard to others. THE appellant contractor has challenged the validity of the judgment of the court below in this appeal.

(2.) THERE is no dispute with regard to the fact, narrated above. Mr. Sinha learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the court below had to jurisdiction to set aside part of the award and in doing so it acted like an appellate court. According to him, the claim was made on the allegation that there had been breach of contract by the respondent and the Arbitrator' was the allegation entitled to allow the claims so made by the appellant. H also urged that even he also urge that even if the claim was said to have arisen out of the contact, since the Arbitrator was required to interpret the terms of the contract it was a question of law and the court below could not have set aside part of the award on the ground that it differed with the conclusion arrived by the Arbitrator. Mr. Shambhu Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that for the purpose of ascertaining whether the appellant was entitled to some of the claims, the Arbitrator was required to look into the contract and as there was no provision on the basis of which some of the claims of the appellant could have been allowed, the award of the Arbitrator in respect of those claims was beyond his jurisdiction. The court below, Mr. Prasad Urged was, THEREfore, Within its jurisdiction to therefore with the award.

(3.) THE Supreme Court in Firm Madanlal Romania Mahajan v. Hukun. Chand Mills Ltd.(AIR 1967 Supreme Court (1930) observed that ;