UNION OF INDIA Vs. MANAS KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant -Union of India against the impugned order passed by the Subordinate Judge -I, Dhanbad, in Misc. Arbitration Case No. 10 of 2004, by which the objection filed by the applicant -Union of India was rejected. The appeal is time -barred by 167 days, for which, no satisfactory explanation has been offered, except the averment, which are ritual in nature to the effect that the file travelled from one department to the other. This, in my view, cannot be treated to be a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. But, in spite of this huge delay which was ignored, the counsel for the appellant was granted liberty to establish as to why the award passed by the arbitrator for a sum of Rs.3,08,896.74, which was passed in favour of the respondent, against which objections also have been rejected by the court below, should be quashed and set aside. The appellant -Union of India had raised objection against the aforesaid award, merely on the ground that the impugned award suffers from infirmities and the conclusion arrived at by the arbitrator was erroneous in nature, since the same had been passed without considering the objection, and hence was fit to be set aside. However, on perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it is clear that the appellant Union of India although had assailed the award as null and void, it has not elaborated specifically in what way the award is erroneous or the reasons for alleging that the arbitrator has misconducted himself in delivering the award and making it a Rule of the court. The work which had been assigned to the respondent, was for execution of the work order which was issued in favour of the respondent, vide letter dated 24.10.1995 for a value of Rs.4,11,255/ -, in pursuance to which the work had started but it could not be completed within the time originally granted to the respondent. The appellant, however, had extended the time for completion of the work, but when it came to making the payment, the same was withheld on the ground that the work had not been completed within the stipulated time. This gave rise to a dispute, for which the matter was referred for arbitration, and the arbitrator, after hearing the contesting parties, passed an award for a sum of Rs.3,08,896.74. However, part payment for the work order was not allowed by the arbitrator since the work order which was for a sum of Rs.4,11,255/ - was not allowed fully since a sum of Rs.3,08,896.74 only was allowed and the same was on account of the delay that had been caused in completing the project, in which the amount was partly deducted by the arbitrator. However, the counsel for the Union of India submitted that it was not a fit case for allowing interest on the amount for which the work order had been issued. However, it has been noticed that the interest that has been awarded to the respondent although is @ 14 % per annum, the same has been awarded only from 1.4.1998 till the date of the award and that has been calculated at Rs.1,16,709/ -, which was allowed by the arbitrator taking the entire facts and circumstances of the matter. The appeal against the same cannot be entertained so as to adjudicate the correctness of the award only in regard to this part of the award, especially in absence of any abuse or misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. The court below has already considered the objection of the appellant -Union of India and has been pleased to hold that the award does not suffer from any infirmity.

(2.) I find no good ground or reason to interfere with this finding of the court below, and hence, this appeal is dismissed not merely on the ground of delay in filing the appeal, but also on merit at the stage of admission itself.