Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 519 (HP)

Vinod Karnal v. State of H. P.

2013-06-11

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
ORDER 1. In this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the claimant has assailed Award dated 26.5.2008 passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Superintending Engineer, 4th Circle, HPPWD, Shimla. 2. Petitioner was awarded work of Improvement of Shimla Wangtoo Road, NH-22, KM 153/0 to 200/0 (SH: Earth work, C/o Breast Walls, C/o Retaining Walls, Cross-Drainage works and parapets in KM 182/0 to 190/0) against contract Agreement No. 110 of 1991-92. Certain disputes arose between the parties and the matter was referred to arbitration. 3. In terms of the impugned award dated 26.5.2008 the Arbitrator has partly allowed the claims of the parties and passed the following Award:- (TABULLAR MATTER IS OMITTED....ED) Due to combined effect of awards in respect of claim Nos. 1, 2 & 6 of claimant and counter claim No. 3 of Respondent, the net amount payable to the claimant would be Rs. 19715/- only with 8% simple interest from 31.7.94 till date of actual payment. 4. It is thus seen that the amount involved in the present case is not substantial. 5. Be that as it may, the challenge to the award is on the ground that no adequate opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner by the Arbitrator. Secondly, the Arbitrator has wrongly allowed the claim of the respondent to the extent of Rs. 41,000/- towards recovery of the stone work. 6. Having perused the record, I am of the considered view that the first contention only merits rejection. The Arbitrator awarded sufficient opportunity to all concerned. Parties were allowed to file their claims/counter claims and place such material as was so required in support of their claim. Also they were heard prior to passing of the impugned award. As such, it cannot be said that the Arbitrator did not afford adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. Even with regard to the second contention, though this Court is not required to look into the factual matrix of the respective claims of the parties, yet has gone into the record to consider the respondents claims with regard to the same. The agreement clearly stipulates that the stone recovered was to be accounted for into the account of the respondent. Simply because no explosives for extracting such material were supplied to the petitioner, that fact by itself would not render the contractual terms to be redundant or negatory. The agreement clearly stipulates that the stone recovered was to be accounted for into the account of the respondent. Simply because no explosives for extracting such material were supplied to the petitioner, that fact by itself would not render the contractual terms to be redundant or negatory. Hence the contention only merits rejection. The amount awarded is not beyond the scope of contract, shockingly disproportionate or based on no evidence. 8. The jurisdiction of the Court to examine the propriety, correctness and legality of the Award is restricted and limited to the ground set out under the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In my considered view, none of the ground, set out therein can be said to have been successfully pleaded or argued by the present petitioner. Most of the claims filed by the claimant stand rejected. 9. As such, no ground for interference is made out and the petition is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. The Court places on record with appreciation the assistance rendered by Mr. Parmod Negi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Petition dismissed.