LAXMI NARAIN SINHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal the appellant is aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of amount awarded vide award dated 20th November, 1980 which has been made rule of the Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 6.10.1997 passed in Title Suit No. 92 of 1976/184 of 1997 by the Subordinate Judge II, Patna

(2.) THE plaintiff appellant entered into an agreement with the defendants -respondents for construction of buildings at Forbisganj. According to the appellant, he had to face difficulties in the construction work, on account of which he had to do extra work involving sufficiently high amount which is claimed to have been done by him under the orders of the authorities concerned. It is alleged that the payments were made to him by the defendants but at a very low percentage of his claim and this led to raising of the disputes by the plaintiff -appellant as per the terms of the agreement by filing the present suit for referring it to the arbitrator. An arbitrator was appointed who submitted his award dated 20th November, 1980 which has been made rule of the Court vide impugned judgment and, accordingly, decree has also been passed. The Union of India (defendant - respondent no.1) had raised objection against the award and the same was rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge vide impugned judgment against which they preferred Misc. Appeal No. 48/98 in this Court which has been dismissed vide order dated 10 -4.1998.

(3.) EARLIER this matter was heard and this Court vide order dated 24.4.1998, while adjourning the Court -fee matter on the request of the learned Government Pleader No. V, directed the Stamp Reporter to re -examine and make further report. The Stamp Reporter on re -examining has reported that the instant first appeal does not appear to be maintainable, rather the miscellaneous appeal under section 39(1) (vi) of the Arbitration Act. 1940 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act ') appears to be maintainable against the impugned order in which only fixed Court -fee is realised and as such realisation of ad valorem Court fee does not appear to be genuine.