Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 235 (MP)

Ramesh Chandra Baghel v. State of M. P.

2018-02-27

HEMANT GUPTA, V.K.SHUKLA

body2018
ORDER 1. Challenge in the present petition is to an Award rendered by Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal on 31.12.2001 awarding a principal sum of Rs. 47,912/- and Rs. 8,601/- towards ante-lite interest against the respondents with proportionate costs. The respondents were also directed to pay pendente-lite and future interest. 2. The entire claim of the petitioner is based upon the fact that the width of the constructed work was 9 meters, whereas he has been paid for 7.5 meters. The reliance of the petitioner is on the measurement books prepared by Shri Choudhary, Sub-Divisional Officer on 22.4.1996 on a rough paper. Subsequently, Shri Badal, Sub-Divisional Officer recorded measurement on 12.7.1996, which was disputed by the petitioner as not correct. 3. Learned Arbitrator has examined the contentions raised and found that in the statement of claim filed, the petitioner has not disputed that there was any alteration in the site plan while filing rejoinder on 7.1.1997. From the site plan, it was found that top width should be 7.5 meters and that, the Attorney of the petitioner has accepted the entries in the measurement book that is at page 12 of first running bill; at page 20 of second running bill; at page 26 of 3rd running bill; at pages 30 and 36 of 4th running bill; at page 55 of 5th running bill; at page 72 of 6th running bill; at page 81 of 7th running bill and at page 84 of 8th running bill. It is only in the final measurements, the Attorney of the petitioner recorded that measurement at pages 1 to 102 was accepted under protest. The Tribunal found that the stand of the petitioner is an afterthought. If the measurements were not being correctly recorded from 1st to 8th running bills then why and how, the Attorney accepted the measurements and then suddenly on 12.7.1996 disputed the measurements. 4. We find that the learned Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact in respect of width of the constructed work. If the measurements were not being correctly recorded from 1st to 8th running bills then why and how, the Attorney accepted the measurements and then suddenly on 12.7.1996 disputed the measurements. 4. We find that the learned Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact in respect of width of the constructed work. In terms of section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, (for short “the Act”) the High Court can interfere against an award of the Tribunal, if the Tribunal exercise its jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested; or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity; or has misconducted itself or the proceedings; or has made an award which is invalid or has been improperly procured by any party to the proceedings. 5. The argument of the petitioner is that the Award suffers from material irregularity. However, the finding recorded by the Tribunal shows that the entire documents have been taken into consideration to return the finding that the petitioner cannot be permitted to dispute the final bill when the entries in the measurements books in respect of 1st to 8th running bills were accepted. 6. The Division Bench of this Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Mahavir Construction Company v. State of M.P. and others [ 1998 (1) MPLJ 69 ], has held that the jurisdiction of this Court under section 19 of the Act is limited. This Court cannot exercise the powers of the appellate Court. The relevant finding reads as under : “29. The jurisdiction of this Court under section 19 of the Act is limited. This Court cannot exercise the powers of appellate Court. Findings recorded by the Tribunal are neither perverse nor illegal. In revision finding of facts cannot be interfered, though different view may be possible. The Tribunal has not misconducted itself or the proceedings. The award was not procured illegally, therefore, this revision deserves to be dismissed.” 7. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the Award rendered by the Tribunal which may warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court under section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. Dismissed.