BHARAT COKING COAL LTD Vs. ANNAPURNA COUSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these cases have been heard analogously as the matter involved is same i.e. the same award is in question in both the appeal and the revision petition.

(2.) Miscellaneous Appeal. No. 169 of 1995 (R) has been filed against the judgment dated 3-6-1995 passed in Title (Arbitration) Suit No.109 of 1994 by the Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Dhanbad. After the judgment was delivered in the above-mentioned title (arbitration) suit, a petition was filed by the plaintiff-respondent i.e. M/s. Annapurna Construction for modification of the judgment and decree with respect to payment of interest as contemplated under Section 29 of the Arbitration Act (the Act). That petition was disposed of vide order dated 12-12-1995 holding that the judgment and decree was challenged in the miscellaneous appeal. At that stage, the original Court should not interfere regarding the interest portion as claimed from the side of the plaintiff- respondent, hence against that order Civil Revision No. 12 of 1996 (R) has been filed.

(3.) The plaintiff filed an application under Section 20 of the Act for order of reference of the dispute appertaining to the construction of 140 numbers of hutments (120 numbers for staff hutments and 20 numbers for officers hutments). On the tender being accepted and agreement being arrived at between the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-appellant, a dispute arose regarding payment as the defendant denied to make payment of the claims being raised from the side of the plaintiff respondent. After hearing both the parties, one Shri P. Banerjee was appointed as sole arbitrator on consent of both the parties and a direction was given by the learned Court below to give a reasoned award judicating the claims and counter-claims of the parties. The time limit fixed by the Court expired and before expiry, the arbitrator sought for extension of time and on consent of both the parties, the time was extended to and ultimately award was passed with reasons thereof and several claims made for and on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent had been allowed and on filing of the award, a prayer was made from the side of the plaintiff-respondent to make the same award as a rule of the Court, but the defendant-appellant raised objection and filed a petition under Section 30 of the Act on the ground that the arbitrator has misdirected himself in the proceeding when he did not consider the counter-claim of the defendant and also the documents filed on their behalf had not been considered in their proper perspective. It was further stated in the objection that the award as per the direction of the Court was not limited to the point of reference and hence the" arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction. A feable plea was also made regarding the award being filed as time barred and as such the same cannot be made as rule of the Court. The learned Court below, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:-