RAM SAROOP GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under section 39 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act, 2002 (1945 A.D.) against the order of learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge rejected the objection of the appellant ("contractor") to the award dated 13th April, 1991 being made rule of Court.

(2.) The material facts of the case are as follows. The appellant is a contractor. He entered into a contract agreement with the Garrison Engineer, 873 - Engineers Works for the construction of M. E. S. Key Personnel Quarters at Akhnoor and commenced work pursuant thereto. Later, the respondents terminated the contract on account of the failure of the appellant to complete the work within the stipulated time and in terms of the conditions of the agreement and got the balance works executed by some other contractor at the risk and cost of the appellant. The respondents also took charge of the materials of the appellant lying at the site . The appellant filed an application under section 20 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act in this Court for a direction to the respondents to file the arbitration agreement in the court and for reference of the dispute between them to Arbitration. Along with the above petition, an application was also filed for appointment of a Commissioner to make an inventory of the materials belonging to the appellant lying at the work-site. This court after hearing both the parties, by order dated 21st September, 1989, referred the dispute between the parties to a sole arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause in the contract agreement. Col. Shri J. Natrajan was appointed as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties arising out of the contract. The appellant- contractor and the respondents filed their respective statement of claims before the arbitrator. The arbitrator gave his award on 13th April, 1991. By the said award the arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs.18,500/- in favour of the appellant contractor and a sum of Rs.2,10,691.42 in favour of the respondents. The award was filed in the court for being made rule of court. The appellant filed his objections to the award being made rule of the court and prayed that the award should be set aside on the ground of misconduct. The learned Single Judge, who heard the matter, observed that the dispute sought to be raised by the appellant was purely a factual dispute which could not be examined by the court under section 30 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act because it was not open to the Court to re-examine and re-appreciate the evidence considered by the arbitrator. The learned Single Judge rejected the objections of the appellant and made the award rule of court. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rejected the objections of the appellant and made the award rule of court. The contractor seeks to challenge the above order of the learned Single Judge in this appeal.

(3.) We have heard Mr. R. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, who submits that the learned Single Judge committed a manifest error in law in not setting aside the award in the instant case on the ground of misconduct. According to him, the report of the Commissioner appointed by the Court during the pendency of the arbitration application under section 20 of the Act was binding on the arbitrator and he should have determined the compensation payable to the contractor on the basis of the said report . He submits that the determination of the compensation by the arbitrator in the present case is arbitrary and the award is liable to be set aside on that count .