CENTRAL COAL FIELD LTD. Vs. K.NANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.2.1995 passed by Sub -Judge, Vth, Ranchi, in Misc. Case No. 33/1992 whereby he has rejected the application filed under Section 30 of the said Act and made the award rule of the Court.

(2.) IT appears that an agreement was executed on 10th October, 1984 between the appellant, Central Coal Fields Ltd. and respondent, M/s. K. Nandi for construction of 10 numbers of RCC Overhead Tanks in different collieries of Hazaribagh Area. The respondent agreed to execute the work subject to the conditions set -forth in the agreement. The appellants case is that the sites of construction of 10 Nos. of RCC Overhead Tanks having 90,000 Ltrs. capacity were handed over to the respondent and the construction work was to be completed within a period of 12 months. It is alleged that the respondent failed to take the work of construction simultaneously and only 7 Nos. of RCC Overhead Tanks could be constructed. The respondent was given extension of time provisionally but he left the work of construction of 3 Nos. of RCC Overhead Tanks. Ultimately the contract was terminated and the respondent laid claim for payment of money for the work done by him which gave rise to dispute and differences. The matter was ultimately referred to the arbitrator who gave the award in favour of the respondent.

(3.) FROM perusal of the award passed by the arbitrator it appears that the arbitrator has come to the conclusion after considering the material evidence that although the respondent had given a lumpsum offer but after negotiation it was agreed that the cost of construction shall be on the basis of item -wise percentage below or above. Consequently the arbitrator has come to the conclusion that some more amount is payable to the contractor. The Court below rightly held that when the arbitrator has considered entire documents and gave his award, there is no scope of interference unless misconduct on the part of the arbitrator is proved.