STATE OF BIHAR Vs. HARDEO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 8.9.1992 of the Sub Judge I, Supaul.

(2.) IT appears that the appellant no. 1 and the respondent entered into an agreement under which the latter undertook construction of Silt Ejector at 0.35 Km. of Western Kosi Canal for Rs. 3,35,11,086.90. Accordingly, a formal agreement no. 10 -F2 of 1983 -84 was executed by them on 3.9.1983. On completion of the project, some dispute about payment arose between the parties which was referred to the sole arbitrator, the Superintending Engineer, Western Kosi Canal Circle, Nirmali, in terms of clause 23 of the agreement and the letter no. 2587, dated 25.8.1972 of the Deputy Secretary, River Valley Project, Government of Bihar.

(3.) THE parties appeared before the arbitrator and led evidence in support of their case on merit. No objection about absence of arbitration clause or jurisdiction of the Superintending Engineer to act as arbitrator was raised by the appellants. The arbitrator after considering the case of the parties, finally made his award for Rs. 16,65,000.00 on 7.4.1990. The award was filed in the Court of Sub Judge I, Supaul through Bishwambhar Prasad Sinha, Assistant Government Pleader on 16.6.1990. In the meantime, C.K.P. Singh, Executive Engineer, Western Kosi Canal project vide his letter no. 256, dated 18.4.1990, also informed the Sub Judge I that the appellants were agree with the award and requested that the same be made rule of the Court. On receiving the award, the Sub Judge issued notice to the parties informing them of the filing of the award and requiring them to file objection, if any, against it within 30 days from the receipt thereof. Both the parties appeared before the Sub Judge through their counsel. While the appellants did not file any objection, a detailed objection was filed by the respondent claiming that the arbitrator has not decided the entire dispute between the parties. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Sub Judge allowed the objection of the respondent on 20.9.1990 and remitted back the award to the arbitrator for reconsideration. The relevant portion of the order reads thus : "In pursuance of the notices issued both the parties appeared through their respective lawyers. The Executive Engineer, Western Kosi Canal Division No.1, Kunoli did not raise any objection. The other party M/s Hardeo Singh of Bathnaha, District Purnea, however, has filed an objection under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. In his objection he has stated that his total claim was to the tune of Rs. 1,88,90,638.85 P. on different heads which were furnished before the Arbitrator alongwith the statement of claim as also before the Engineer in Chief of the work in question. That in the course of hearing the claim of objector petitioner towards dewatering, labour, escalation charges as well as payment for escalation and price of P.O.L. as per actual use was virtually accepted by the Department before the Arbitrator but the Arbitrator has allowed only Rs. 16.65 Lacks without mentioning the amount allowed on a particular head and has left undetermined many matters referred to him. This has caused much monetary loss. I have already heard the learned counsels of both parties and have gone through the award submitted by the Arbitrator. After perusing the objection filed by the objector petitioner as well as the award, I find that the award is not a speaking award. The basis of the conclusion arrived at by the Arbitrator is not mentioned. It appears that the Arbitrator has left much portion of the claim of the objector petitioner undetermined. In such circumstances it is desirable that the Award should be remitted back to the Arbitrator for further consideration in the light of the objection raised by the objector petitioner. Accordingly the objection petition filed on behalf of M/s Hardeo Singh is hereby allowed. The Award is remitted back to the learned Arbitrator for reconsideration and determination of the claim in the light of the objections raised in the objection petition. The Arbitrator is required to submit his decision to this court within six months."