9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yak and D. Parashar for the Respondent ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed impugning the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dated 13.11.2002 whereby the learned judges of the High Court, on an appeal by the respondent from a judgment by the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam, dated 1.1.1991, were pleased to disallow part of the claims which were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning the rival contentions, the arbitrator gave an award dated 16.03.1990 for an amount of Rs. 19,51,334.25 with interest at the rate of 10% on Rs. 18,86,700.23, the principal amount, from the date of award to the date of decree. The claimant then applied for making the award into 'rule of the court' and, vide order dated 1.1.1991, the III Additional Sub-Judge, Ernakulam passed an order making the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e heard counsel for the parties and we have perused the award. The award runs into considerable detail as it is a speaking award. While dealing with this part of the claim, the arbitrator in paragraph 5.11, 5.12 and 5.13 of the award has given detailed reasons. We are of the view that the settled position in law is that court should not substitute its own view for the view taken by the arbitrator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the arbitrator that because of such delay the claimant was put in great difficulty in completing the work in time. It is nobody's case that by doing so the arbitrator has acted beyond his jurisdiction or committed any legal misconduct. 7. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the award of the arbitrator. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment of the High Court and uphold the award of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
