9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nyakumari Road from Reaches 37.6 k.m. to 213 k.m. on the Madurai-Kanyakumari Road and the work was divided into fourteen Reaches and 14 separate agreements were entered into between the petitioner and the Superintending Engineer, National Highways, Tirunelveli, respondent No. 3 to the present petitions. There is not much dispute on this point. At the relevant time, according to the petitioner, the Superintending Engineer, National Highways, Salem was one Thiru Mohan. He entered into reference. He took up the matter for arbitration and called for statements from the parties. Statements were filed before him and evidence were also adduced before him. But before he could complete the adjudication he was transferred and was succeeded by one Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had no jurisdiction to conclude. It was violative of the principles of natural justice, it was submitted. But as mentioned hereinbefore, the petitioner had knowledge of the change of the incumbent. He did not protest and the proceedings went on before Thiru Cornelius. It is apparent from the terms of the agreement between the parties that the Superintending Engineer of the Circle for the time being was the named arbitrator. The learned District Judge held that Thiru Cornelius was competent to pass the award. The High Court also upheld that and rejected the challenge to the award on this ground made by the petitioner. 2. Shri A.K. Sen, learned Counsel for the petitioners, urged before us that once an arbitrator had entered into reference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Anr. (1982) 2 Scale 125 . See Russell on Arbitration, 20th Edition, pages 432-435. Shri Sen contended that no notice was issued after the appointment of the new arbitrator. This was factually incorrect, as mentioned before. Then, it was said that the award was bad as it did not consider all the claims. This also cannot be entertained. It must be assumed that the arbitrator had considered all the evidence adduced before him. There was no disregard of any principle of law. There was nothing to indicate that the arbitrator had not considered all the evidence. Unless there was a patent mistake of law and gross misstatement of facts resulting in miscarriage of justice or of equity, the award remains unassailable. In this case the arbitrator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
