Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1049 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Mittal & Company

2018-04-23

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. The present appeal has been preferred to assail the correctness of the order dated 03.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bikaner in Civil Misc. Case No.101/2015 by which the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 preferred by the appellant against the award dated 21.07.2009, passed by the sole Arbitrator has been rejected. 2. The relevant facts to be noted in the present case are that the State of Rajasthan entered into an agreement with the respondent for manufacturing and supplying 'Pucci tiles' and 'bricks'. For the purpose an agreement No.9 was executed in favour of the respondent No.1 M/s. Mittal & Company for making and supplying of 'Pucci tiles' and bricks at Kiln Burji 1031 R.M.C. As per the terms and condition of the aforesaid agreement, the work was to commence and to be completed by 11.09.1981. A grace period of four months thereafter due to the rainy season was also agreed to be granted and thus, the work was to be completed by 12.01.1982. 3. A dispute arose between the parties and as per the agreement, the matter was to be resolved through arbitration proceedings and, therefore, sole arbitrator Shri Madan Mahipal, the then Superintending Engineer, Second Stage, Circle-I, I.G.N.P, Bikaner was appointed to settle the claim and the counter claim between the parties. The sole arbitrator on filing of the claim and counter claim and after completion of the pleadings framed as many as 13 issues in the matter. Thereafter vide order dated 21.07.2009 allowed the claim of the respondent while rejecting the counter claim of the appellant State of Rajasthan. 4. Feeling aggrieved of the order passed by the sole arbitrator, the appellants challenged the same taking recourse to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by way of filing an application before the learned District Judge, Bikaner. The same was referred to the Additional District Judge No.2, Bikaner for adjudication. 5. After hearing the parties the application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the State of Rajasthan was rejected vide order dated 03.04.2017 holding that there is neither any violation of the public policy nor any misconduct committed by the sole arbitrator. It was also held that none of the conditions mentioned in Section 34 (2) and (3) has been violated. 6. It was also held that none of the conditions mentioned in Section 34 (2) and (3) has been violated. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The order dated 03.04.2017 has been challenged by way of present appeal and the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the sole Arbitrator has taken into consideration the strength of the coal supplied by the appellants in pursuance of the agreement entered. The sole arbitrator was not right in taking into consideration the calorific value of the coal for judging the category of the coal supplied by the appellant. The specific condition is that since required coal as agreed between the parties was supplied to the respondent, the appellant has completed their part and, therefore, not producing or giving the desired result was the fault of the respondent. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the quality of the coal was sub-standard and, therefore, the desired result could not have been expected from the respondent. For the purpose the condition of the agreement has been violated by the State of Rajasthan and, therefore, the claims of the respondent has rightly been awarded by the sole arbitrator and the counter claims have rightly been rejected vide order dated 21.07.2009 by the sole arbitrator. 9. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised and examined the record. I find that the sole arbitrator while deciding the issues No.2 and 9 have very rightly taken into consideration that the appellants were under an obligation to provide 'A' Grade of coal and the strength of 'A' category of coal is calorific value of 6200 K/Col/kg as per the Gazette notification issued by the Government of India whereas the calorific value of 'C' and 'D' Grade of coal is 4900 and 4200 K/Col/kg. 10. Since, 'A' Grade of Coal has not been supplied by the appellant to the respondent, the desired result or purpose was not achieved. Needless to say the State of Rajasthan was under an obligation to provide the coal of 'A' category but having not supplied the same they have violated the conditions of the agreement and, therefore, claim has rightly been decided to that extent in the favour of the respondent. Needless to say the State of Rajasthan was under an obligation to provide the coal of 'A' category but having not supplied the same they have violated the conditions of the agreement and, therefore, claim has rightly been decided to that extent in the favour of the respondent. Besides this as it has rightly been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that the scope of interference in such matters is very limited and the interference can only be done if a case of violation of conditions enumerated in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is made out. 11. I find none of the conditions of Section 34 of the Act of 1996 having been violated in the present case. 12. In view of whatever stated above, there is no substance in the present appeal. The same is therefore dismissed. No costs.