JAGDISH CHANDER GUPTA Vs. MD JKPCC LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Some work relating to shuttering of blocks at Police Training College, Udhampur, was allotted to the petitioner claimant. As dispute arose between the parties due to non completion of the work and resultant non release of the amount payable to the complainant, which as per him was due to non release of the shuttering by the respondents, an arbitration application bearing No. 5/95 came to be filed by the claimant in this Court, for referring the dispute to an independent arbitrator. The said petition was directed to be transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Udhampur, for disposal, who vide order dt. 31st of May 97, taking note of the fact that the agreement/ allotment order itself specifies and names the arbitrator, rejected the application of the claimant and referred the matter to the Managing Director J&K Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. Srinagar, for deciding the matter and publishing the award within four months from the date he receives the order of reference.

(2.) Against the aforementioned order, a revision petition was filed by the claimant, which was allowed and one Sh. B. D. Nayyar, retired District & Sessions Judge was appointed as the arbitrator but he could not complete the proceedings and in his place a new arbitrator was appointed by this Court, who has passed the award dt. 12th of Feb 08, and submitted the same to this Court for making it rule of the Court. It is this award which is subject matter of challenge in the present arbitration application under Section 34 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1997 (hereinafter called the Act of 1997).

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondentJ&K Project Construction Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), submitted that the learned arbitrator while passing the impugned award has not considered the objections filed by the Corporation and the evidence led by it in support of the objections to the claim filed by the claimant. It is stated that the rates approved by the Corporation for the works to be done by the claimant were not taken into consideration and assessed the loss alleged to be incurred by him on day to day basis which is not in accordance with the norms laid down by the Corporation in this regard. It is stated that even the interest component which has been allowed, is on the higher side. It is contended that loss, if any, suffered by the claimant was not due to the fault of the Corporation but it was the claimant who failed to collect its material from the site. It is further contended that the learned arbitrator has taken into consideration the alleged verbal order for allotment of work for BlockE, Lower subordinate quarters, PTC, Udhampur, whereas, infact, there was no sanction/confirmation for the said work by the competent authority, and as such, the loss assessed and the claim allowed in respect of the said work, is not in accordance with the law.