UNION OF INDIA Vs. JITENDRA KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals, one filed by the appellant -Union of India and the other filed by the respondent -claimant Shri Jitendra Kumar Sharma, arise out of the same order dated 15.12.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ''the court below '') in Civil Misc. Petition (Arbitration) No.156/1994, whereby the court below has made the award dated 16.05.1994 passed by the sole Arbitrator Shri Shiv Kumar Garg, the Rule of the court.

(2.) IN the instant case, it appears that the respondent -claimant was awarded a contract pursuant to the tender notice dated 28.09.1989 for the work styled as ''REWARI -FL Section - complete track renewal from KM 148 to KM 163 of existing 60 R Rails track with 90 R Rails and CST/9 sleepers, etc., vide the Acceptance letter dated 10.04.1990. Since the some disputes had arisen in the execution of the said work and the payments to be made to the respondent -claimant, an application was made by the respondent -claimant seeking appointment of Arbitrator under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as ''the said Act ''). The court below vide the order dated 20.09.1993 had appointed Shri Shiv Kumar Garg, Advocate as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the said disputes between the parties. The said Arbitrator made the award dated 16.05.1994, by observing as under: -

(3.) IT has been sought to be submitted by Mr. Aslam Khan, Railway Panel Counsel, for the appellant -Union of India that the impugned award made by the Arbitrator suffers from gross illegality, inasmuch as the Arbitrator has not assigned any reasons in support of the said award. According to him, the claims made by the respondent -claimant were not legally tenable, and the Arbitrator has not assigned any reasons as to how such claims were allowed. Mr. Khan, has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh And Others Versus Combined Chemicals Company Private Limited, (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases 151, and the decision of Constitutional Bench in case of Raipur Development Authority v. Chokhamal Contractors, (1989) 2 Supreme Court Cases 721 and also in case of T.N. Electricity Board v. Bridge Tunnel Constructions, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases 121 and further in case of Punjab SEB v. Punjab Pre -Stressed Concrete Works, (2002) 9 Supreme Court Cases 740, in support of his submissions.