Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 549 (UTT)

U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. O. P. Kalara

2013-08-23

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2013
Judgment Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) This revision, preferred under Section 37(2) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is directed against order dated 30.07.2012, passed by District Judge, Haridwar, whereby the appeal has been dismissed, and order dated 01.11.2008, passed by the sole arbitrator has been affirmed. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist entered into the agreement with the respondent (contractor), relating to certain construction work, under Agreement No. 80E/E/82-83. On conclusion of the work under contract, the revisionist issued an order dated 10.03.1993, directing the contractor (respondent No.1) to pay penalty of Rs. 40,052.50/-. 4) It appears that the contractor moved an application under Section 11(6) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and this Court vide its order dated 17.07.2007, appointed the sole arbitrator to decide the dispute. After Shri P.K. Sharma, Retired Chief Engineer, who was appointed sole arbitrator, expressed his inability to decide the dispute, Shri G.C. Garg was appointed sole arbitrator. After said arbitrator entered in to the arbitration, the revisionist U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad raised objection as to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal stating that the Tribunal cannot look into the disputes except regarding the penalty of Rs. 40,052.50/-. On the other hand, the claimant/respondent No.1 (contractor) raised several issues & claims to challenge the order of penalty passed by U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (revisionist). 5) Relying on sub-Section (1) of Section 16 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Arbitral Tribunal held that it has jurisdiction to decide all connected disputes relating to the penalty imposed by the revisionist. Said order dated 01.11.2008, was challenged by the present revisionist before the District Judge, Haridwar, by filing Criminal Misc. Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2008, under Section 37(2) of the Act. After hearing the parties, said appellate court dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision. 6) I have gone through the provisions contained in Section 16 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction on any objection raised by a party. The plea raised by the present revisionist before the Arbitral Tribunal was covered under sub-Section (3) of Section 16 of the Act, which were rightly decided by the Arbitral Tribunal, as sub-Section (5) of Section 16 of the Act, empowers the Tribunal to decide such an issue. The plea raised by the present revisionist before the Arbitral Tribunal was covered under sub-Section (3) of Section 16 of the Act, which were rightly decided by the Arbitral Tribunal, as sub-Section (5) of Section 16 of the Act, empowers the Tribunal to decide such an issue. Keeping in mind the said provisions of law, this Court finds no illegality, either in the order dated 01.11.2008, passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, or in the order dated 30.07.2012, passed by the District Judge, Haridwar, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2008. 7) This revision has been filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Not only the revision is liable to be dismissed summarily on the ground that the impugned orders suffer from no illegality, as mentioned above, but also on the ground that if such a revision is admitted, it would defeat the object of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, of speedy disposal of disputes. Apart from this, it is also relevant to mention here that it is open for the parties, to challenge the award, after it is given on its merits by the arbitrator under Section 34 of the Act, on the ground that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction in respect of the matter. Since, admittedly, there was an arbitration clause in the agreement, and that the Arbitral Tribunal was empowered under Section 16(1) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to decide the objections raised, relating to his jurisdiction, before he entered into the merits of the dispute, there is no reason to admit this revision, as there is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. 8) Therefore, without prejudice to the rights of the parties, this revision is dismissed summarily (Stay Application No. 5070 of 2013 and Interim Application No. 2704 of 2013 also stand disposed of).