MANZOOR AHMAD GUNNA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two civil appeals, one by the claimant-contractor and the other by the State, have been filed against order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar, whereby the court below, while modifying the arbitral Award, has reduced the rate of interest allowed by the Arbitrator from 18% to 6% on the award amount. The claimant is aggrieved of the order to the extent it reduced the rate of interest; whereas the State is aggrieved of the Award in its totality and the order passed by the court below making it the rule of the court after modifying it.

(2.) The matter pertains to the disputes arising out of the contract for construction of first 2.4 Kms, i.e. 0 to 2.4 Km, of the National Highway Bye Pass, starting from Athwajan Srinagar, which was allotted to the deceased father of the appellants in the first of these two appeals, viz. CFA no.15/2014, vide letter dated 20.09.1975. Pressing into service the arbitration clause of the contract, the contractor had sought appointment of an arbitrator by issuance of notice dated 11.04.1983 read with notice dated 17.01.1984. On account of inaction on part of the State, the contractor, in the year 1985, sought indulgence of this Court in the matter by filing Arbitration Petition no. 28/85 in consequence whereof, in terms of Court order dated 16.10.1989 passed therein, one Mr. Qazi Nizam-ud-Din, a retired Chief Engineer, was appointed as the sole Arbitrator to settle the dispute inter se the parties. However, while the arbitration proceedings were going on, the said Arbitrator died. In his place, another Arbitrator, namely, Mr. A. W. Karaipak, was appointed in terms of order dated 18.09.1995. While Mr. Karaipak was seized of the matter, the State filed an application seeking change of the Arbitrator. However, subsequently, the State insisted upon appointing someone as monitor, upon which one Mr. H. U. Dev, retired District Judge, was appointed as the monitor with a view to oversee proceedings of Mr. Karaipak. Mr. Karaipak, however, expressed his unwillingness to act as the Arbitrator in the matter. Resultantly, one Mr. Qazi Ghulam Rasool, retired Chief Engineer, was appointed as the Arbitrator, who ultimately entered upon the dispute between the parties, made and filed the award before the learned Principal District Judge. The learned Principal District Judge called objections. The claimants chose not to file any objection; while as the State filed objections. The learned Principal District Judge disallowed some of the claims of the claimants which had been allowed by the Arbitrator and also reduced the rate of interest awarded by the Arbitrator from 18% to 6%, and, thus, made the Award rule of the Court. As mentioned above, whereas the claimants are aggrieved of the order of the Principal District Judge only to the extent it slashed down the rate of interest, the State is aggrieved of the Award in its totality and, consequently, the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge.

(3.) I heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter.