DEV DUTT Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is seeking review of the judgment dated 6-2-1989 delivered by the Division Bench in LPA (C) No. 13/86 whereby the judgment dated 10-5-1986 of the learned single Judge passed in Arbitration Application No. 72/80, has been modified by disallowing items 13 and 14 of the claims awarded by the arbitrator, and made rule of the Court by the learned single Judge. He also seeks to grant interest at the rate of 18 per cent against 6 per cent per annum allowed by the learned single Judge, by allowing the cross-objections filed by him before the learned single Judge.

(2.) Shorn of details the brief fact necessary for disposal of this review petition are : that a contract for the construction of part of Ravi Tawi Irrigation Complex including the earthwork and construction of concrete structures, was allotted to the petitioner which he could not complete within the stipulated period. A dispute having arisen, petitioner filed petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act (No. 72/80) in the Court for issuing directions to the respondents to file arbitration agreement in the Court and refer the disputes arisen between the parties to an independent arbitrator. Along with it, he also moved an application (CMP No. 136/80) in which the learned single Judge appointed a Commissioner on 13-6-1980 to visit the site and record measurements of the work done by the petitioner. This order came to be modified by changing the Commissioner vide order dated 28-8-1980 passed in CMP No. 176/80. The Commissioner accordingly submitted his report on 9-12-1980 after recording the measurements of the work done by the petitioner on spot. For adjudication of the disputes and the claim raised by the parties, the learned single Judge on 9-4-1982 appointed Shri N. N. Dogra, retired Chief Engineer, as an agreed arbitrator to enter upon the reference and make award which he filed on 9-2-1983. The learned single Judge, after observing the provisions of the Arbitration Act and due process of law, made the award of the arbitrator a rule of the Court with modification of slashing down the interest from 10% to 6% per annum and also deleted the clause imposing penal interest at the rate of 18% per annum being harsh, from the award.

(3.) Respondents, aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge, preferred LPA(C) No. 13/86. The Division Bench modified the judgment by rejecting claims 13 and 14 on the ground that the arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction as the same were neither contained in the application under Sec. 20 nor referred by the Court for adjudication by the arbitrator. The petitioner has sought review of the judgment of the Division Bench on the ground that the judgment under review suffers from errors apparent on the face of record within the meaning of Order XLVII, C.P.C. and can be corrected by way of a review.