PIONEER ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is brought on behalf of a firm called Pioneer Engineering Works against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge Rancbi, dated 22-2-1955, rejecting an application for settling aside an award and granting a decree in terms of the award with regard to the claim made by the appellant.

(2.) IT appears that the appellant entered into two contracts namely, contract No. P/256 of 1943/44 and contract No. PAN/26 of 1944/45, with the Governor General in Council through the Chief Engineer, Eastern Command, Ranchi, in order to make certain constructions for the mili- tary department. The work completed in the year 1945 and the final bills were also paid to the appellant near about the same time. The appellant, however raised certain objections regarding payment alleging that it had been underpaid with regard to certain items. The military department disputed the claim of the appellant and stated in their turn that the appellant had been overpaid with regard to certain items. The dispute was ultimately referred to sole arbitration of Brigadier Bikram Singh, who was Brigadier in charge of Administration, Eastern Command. He accepted the reference, and on 25-11- 1953, he wrote to the parties asking them to submit their statements. In pursuance of that tetter the appellant submitted its claim on 26-12-1953, and the Government filed their Statement on 18-2- 1954. In the reply of the Government dated 18-2-1954, they also made a counter-claim with regard to over payment to the contractor. The arbitrator gave a hearing to the parties on 14-4-1954, and published the award on 24-4-1954. The relevant portion of the award of the arbitrator is as follows : "I award and direct that : Firstly, The Claimants' claims after adjusting the Respondents Counter-claims are rejected. Secondly, Each party shall bear its own cost of reference. Thirdly, Stamp duty shall be paid by the Respondent."

(3.) THE main submissions made on behalf of the appellant in this Court are (1) that the arbitrator has gone beyond the subject-matter of the reference, and so the award is illegal and should be set aside, (2) that the award has not been given within the period of four months as provided in Schedule 1, Article 3 of the Arbitration Act, and (3) that the arbitrator has misconducted himself in entertaining the counter-claim on behalf of the respondent.