Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 831 (RAJ)

Ramswaroop and Sons v. Union of India

2010-04-13

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, read with Section 96, C.P.C. against judgment and decree dated 30.11.1998 passed by District Judge, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 130/95, whereby, learned District Judge has made the award dated 10.07.1995 passed by the sole Arbitrator (respondent No. 2) as Rule of Court by allowing application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act filed by respondent No. 1. 2. As per brief facts of the case, contract agreement was entered into in between the appellant and respondent No. 1 on 03.06.1988. Appellant firm completed major part of the work as per agreement and a small part was left over but the Union of India (Chief Engineer) cancelled the contract unilaterally on 12.07.1994 and dispute arose in between the parties regarding the left over work and Union of India wanted to get the left over work completed at the risk and cost of the contractor. 3. As per terms and conditions of the contract agreement, the dispute was referred to the sole Arbitrator and Mr. S.K. Rao, CSW was appointed as the sole Arbitrator for adjudicating the claim of the Union of India. The Arbitrator finally passed award on 10.07.1995 in favour of Union of India and allowed the following claim in favour of the Union of India : "Claim No. 1 = Rs. 1,84,500/- Claim No. 2 = Rs. 8,186.85 Claim No. 3 = Rs. 66,500/- Claim No. 4 = Nil Total = Rs. 2,59,186.85 ps and no interest was awarded." 4. After passing of the award, Union of India applied under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act before the District Judge, Udaipur for making the award given by the sole Arbitrator as Rule of Court and a decree in terms of the award was passed in favour of the Union of India. 5. The appellant firm, after receiving notice, submitted objections under Section 17(2), read with Section 30, of the Arbitration Act but the learned District Judge, Udaipur while rejecting the objections filed by the appellant passed the impugned judgment dated 30.11.1998, whereby, the award was made Rule of Court. The appellant firm is challenging the said judgment in this appeal. 6. 5. The appellant firm, after receiving notice, submitted objections under Section 17(2), read with Section 30, of the Arbitration Act but the learned District Judge, Udaipur while rejecting the objections filed by the appellant passed the impugned judgment dated 30.11.1998, whereby, the award was made Rule of Court. The appellant firm is challenging the said judgment in this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently argued that the judgment of the learned District Judge, Udaipur dated 30.11.1998 whereby he has made the award Rule of Court is erroneous and illegal because the objections raised by the appellant were not considered in proper manner. It is also argued that the learned Court below has not properly considered the objection petition of the appellant with regard to claims raised by the Union of India before the sole Arbitrator, therefore, the finding and conclusion arrived at by the learned District Judge deserves to be quashed because it has not been passed after taking into consideration the entire facts of the case. The order of the learned District Judge is not justified because the objections raised on behalf of the appellant firm were not considered in proper manner and, straight away, the learned District Judge has made the award Rule of Court. 7. So many other grounds have been raised during the course of arguments but specific argument of the appellant is that their objection has not been considered in right perspective by the learned District Judge though comprehensive objection petition was filed. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that in this matter after hearing both the parties on 20.12.2003, stay order granted by this Court was vacated on the ground that the learned District Judge has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment because, at the time of rendering the judgment impugned, all the objections raised by the appellant were incorporated in para 7 of the order and, while considering the objections, issues were framed and matter was adjudicated issue-wise. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that in the finding on issue No. 1, it is categorically observed by learned District Judge that In-spite of due service of notice, which is evident from documents Ex.-1 to Ex.-7, the appellant who raised the objections, did not appear before the Arbitrator, therefore, in absence of the appellant, the matter was adjudicated by the Arbitrator. 10. Likewise, with regard to issue No. 2 for objection with regard to place of hearing at Lucknow, though as per Section 17, there is discretion left with the Arbitrator to choose the place of hearing, however, for the said provision, objection was raised that this provision itself is wrong. Learned District Judge rejected the said plea which does not require any interference. 11. It is further argued by counsel for the respondents that with regard to issue No. 3 there is clear finding that term of award was extended as per reply and witness Ramesh Chandra did not satisfy the Court as to how the time extended upon the approval of respondent was wrong. 12. For issue No. 4, it is specifically observed that no documentary evidence or witness were produced in support of his oral contention. More so, the appellant objector did not appear before the Arbitrator, therefore, it cannot be said that the Arbitrator committed misconduct which warrants any interference, therefore, this appeal may be dismissed. 13. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties and perused the judgment impugned dated 30.11.1998. 14. Upon perusal of the order, it is abundantly clear that the learned District Judge, after taking into consideration the objections raised by the appellant, framed four issues and gave finding that In-spite of service of notice upon the appellant issued by the Arbitrator, the appellant did not choose to appear before the Arbitrator and, now, in the Court appellant is raising baseless objections with regard to conduct of the Arbitrator that the Arbitrator has decided the matter arbitrarily. 15. I have perused the finding of the learned District Judge upon all the four issues. In my opinion, finding of the learned District Judge is based upon sound reasons that there is no substance in the objections raised by the appellant that award is wrong. When the appellant itself did not choose to appear before the Arbitrator In-spite of service of notice nor cared to apply for reviewing the claim of the Union of India, so also, raising voice that the provision itself with regard to fixing the place of hearing is illegal, the finding of the learned District Judge cannot be put to blame. When the appellant itself did not choose to appear before the Arbitrator In-spite of service of notice nor cared to apply for reviewing the claim of the Union of India, so also, raising voice that the provision itself with regard to fixing the place of hearing is illegal, the finding of the learned District Judge cannot be put to blame. In my considered opinion, the reasons given by the learned District Judge for rejecting the objections of the appellant are based upon cogent grounds, so also, no material was produced before the learned Court below to show that the Arbitrator has committed any misconduct, for which, the award passed by the Arbitrator may be quashed. 16. In this view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere in the judgment impugned dated 30.11.1998. This miscellaneous appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******