9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V.N. KHARE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ. Shiv Kumar Suri for the Appellant. Subodh Markandeya and Ashok K. Srivastava for the Respondent. JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. - These two appeals involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts : 2. The parties hereto entered into a contract dated 20th August, 1964 for the purpose of construction of Obra Dam, Power House, structures and appurtenant works. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties as regard supply of extra quantity of earth and rock, the matter was referred to an arbitrator. 3. As far back as on 23-8-1972, the appellant herein invoked the arbitration a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed a statement of claim for a sum of ₹ 43,50,958.48 on extra quantity of 8,45,319.471 cu.m. of earthfill excavated from the external sources obtained from borrow areas at the rate of ₹ 880.91 per 100 cu.m. It also made a claim of ₹ 26,47,746.34 for extra quantity of 1,66,524.927 cu.m. of rock excavated from the external sources/quarries at the rate of ₹ 1,590 per 100 cu.m. The Umpire appointed for determination of disputes between the parties who was a retired Engineer-in-chief of the respondent herein awarded a sum of ₹ 7,29,764.00 in respect of the claim for extra quantity of earthfill and a sum of ₹ 8,74,256.00 in relation to its claim for rockfill. The appellant herein filed applications for making ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion has been drawn to the fact that even before the Umpire the respondent admitted that the appellant herein is entitled for the extra items of admitted total quantity of earth and rock to the extent of 8,45,319.471 cu.m. and 1,66,524.927 cu.m. respectively and only in terms of such admission the awards have been passed. 7. The learned counsel would contend that from the awards it would appear that although the claims of the appellant were for a sum of ₹ 43,50,958.48 and ₹ 26,47,746.34; the learned Umpire awarded only a sum of ₹ 7,29,764.00 and ₹ 8,74,256.00 in its favour. 8. Mr. Subodh Markandeya, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the umpir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er House, Spillway, Approach and Tail Race Channels. Against this, I award ₹ 7,29,764.00 (Rs. Seven lakhs twenty nine thousand, seven hundred and sixty four) only. A similar award has been passed in respect of claim of the appellant relating to rockfill. A bare perusal of the said awards would clearly go to show that the respondent admitted a part of the claim of the appellant which, in turn, was accepted by it. 10. Such an admission presumably was made having regard to the documents which were filed by the parties before the Umpire as also decisions of the Allahabad High Court in ( sic ). The respondent did not raise any question as regard the said admission of part of the quantity of earthfill and rockfill before the Umpire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court have not found that the Umpire acted arbitrarily, irrationally, capriciously or independent on the contract. No finding has been arrived at that the Umpire had made conscious disregard of the contract which was manifest on the fact of the award. 15. The Court exercises a very limited jurisdiction while adjudicating upon an objection to the award in terms of section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. 16. In the instant case, the Umpire has merely set out the claims, given the history of the claims and awarded certain amount. He has not disclosed his mind indicating as to why he had done so or what was done. The Courts, therefore could not interfere with the award merely on ipse dixit . 17. In Sudarsan Trading Co. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied in sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is attracted. It is not a case where it can be said that the arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings. It was within his jurisdiction to interpret clause 47 of the Agreement having regard to the fact-situation obtaining therein. ( sic ) It is submitted that an award made by an arbitrator may be wrong either on law or on fact and error of law on the face of it could not nullify an award. The award is a speaking one. The arbitrator has assigned sufficient and cogent reasons in support thereof. Interpretation of a contract, it is trite, is a matter for arbitrator to determine ( see Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Government of Kerala AIR 1989 SC 890). Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
