LAWS(RAJ)-1998-12-8

UNION OF INDIA Vs. RATTAN SINGH GEHLOT

Decided On December 18, 1998
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
RATTAN SINGH GEHLOT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment I propose to decide these two appeals arising out of the arbitration award given by the arbitrator appointed in relation to contract agreement No. CEZ/JOD/20/D.F./1985-86. In relation to the appointment of the arbitrator there was some litigation and ultimately by the orders of this Court the appointment of the arbitrator was upheld. A challenge to the upholding of the appointment of the arbitrator is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, in the meantime the present appeals have become ripe for hearing and, therefore, they are being decided by this judgment.

(2.) The arbitration award was filed in the Court of learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur. Before the learned Additional District Judge, the objections were filed by the Union of India under Ss. 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. The contractor contested by the objections and after considering the case of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur decided the dispute in between the parties vide his judgment dated 16-4-1996. The parties have come before this Court against this judgment. In the appeal filed by the Union of India, the appeal concerns the award in relation to claim filed by the contractor under claim No. 5, 12, 14, 32 and 34 and the decision of the learned Additional District Judge. The appeal filed by the contractor relates to claim No. 13 and 31 of the claim petition as decided by the arbitrator and adjudicated by the learned Additional District Judge.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Union of the India has assailed the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge stating inter alia that the learned Additional District Judge has not appreciated the correct proposition of law. The award which was being considered by the learned Additional District Judge was a non-speaking award. There were no reasons available on the record. The arguments raised by and on behalf of the Union of India were not appreciated by the learned Additional District Judge.