TARAI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Tarai Development Corporation Limited
IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This revision is directed against order dated 29.04.1994, passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Nainital, in Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1991, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the order dated 02.12.1978, passed by Civil Judge, Nainital, (Camp Haldwani) in Original Suit No. 91 of 1976. The trial court (Civil Judge, Nainital, (Camp Haldwani) had partly allowed the objection of respondent No.2 Sukhanand Jain and remitted the matter to the Arbitrator for fresh finding on point No.9 relating to quantum of damages.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record.
(3.) Brief facts of the case are that revisionist M/s Tarai Development Corporation Ltd., Pantnagar, entered in to an agreement with respondent No.2 Sukhanand Jain (since died) on 11.12.1971, whereby respondent No.2 Sukhanand Jain, a Contractor, was given a contract for leveling some 4000 acres of land for an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs. It appears that the work could not start and the present revisionist Tarai Development Corporation Ltd., terminated the contract vide letter dated 15.05.1972 and forfeited Rs. 10,000/- which was the amount of security deposited by the Contractor. On this, taking shelter of Arbitration Clause in the agreement, the dispute raised by the Contractor was referred to the Arbitrator, Mr. H.G. Verma. The said Arbitrator gave an award on 03.11.1976, and submitted the same on 16.12.1976, before the Civil Judge, Nainital, for making it a Rule of Court under Section 14 of The Arbitration Act, 1940. The notices were issued by the trial court. Respondent No.2 Sukhanand Jain (Contractor) filed objections against the award stating that damages awarded are not inconsonance of Section 73 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. It was challenged stating that the Arbitrator has erred in accepting opinion of expert Mr. Justice L.P. Nigam, in arriving to the conclusion. The revisionist Tarai Development Corporation Ltd., also filed its objections before the trial court, stating that the damages awarded by the Arbitrator are high and unjustified.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.