- (1.) BY the Court.These two appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 31 -5 -2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Varanasi, in Misc. Application No. 121 of 1999 and Misc. Application No. 122 of 1999 rejecting two objections filed by the appellant Union of India, under Section 34(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The above two objections were against two awards passed with regard to two contracts entered into by the parties. As the terms of the contract and the parties were the same, the learned Judge disposed off the above two objections by passing the impugned common order which is under challenge in these two appeals.
(2.) THE brief history giving rise to these appeals is that in connection with two contracts between the parties some, disputes arose, and in accordance with the terms of the contract the disputes, were referred to an arbitrator, who after considering the evidence adduced by the parties gave his award dated 19 -7 -1999 in respect of the above two contracts. Against these awards objections were preferred under Section 34 of the Act by the appellant asserting that the arbitrator had included those points of dispute for which he had no jurisdiction because the competent officer of the department was authorized to deal with such matter. It was further pleaded by the appellant that the arbitrator had gone beyond his jurisdiction by adjudicating those disputes which could be disposed off by the officer of the department, and therefore, the award should be set aside. Against the above two objections preferred by the Union of India, the respondent filed replies and pleaded that the arbitrator was appointed as per the terms of the agreement between the parties and all the disputes between the parties were placed before the arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the contract, and the arbitrator after considering the material placed before him by the parties decided the same by passing two awards in respect of the above two contracts. It was denied that the arbitrator had gone beyond his jurisdiction or had decided those points which were to be decided by any other competent authority. The contention from the side of the respondent was that all the disputes were to be referred to the arbitrator, and therefore, the trial Judge has committed no error in passing the impugned judgment. We have heard the learned Counsels for the appellant and respondent at length and have also gone through the material available on record.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the contractor -respondent had advanced 16 claims whereas the appellant Union of India placed 6 claims before the arbitrator for decision but the arbitrator wrongly exercised his jurisdiction in respect of claim No. 1 which, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, could be decided by the competent officer of the department. Hence, it was urged that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to treat that dispute within his jurisdiction, and the impugned award in respect of claim No. 1 is thus beyond the scope of the contract agreement between the parties. It was also argued from the side of the appellant that the award of 10% profit by the arbitrator is also unjustified particularly when no such work was done for which the profit has been awarded. It is also argued that there is no evidence to prove the above claim of profit of 10%. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, the award of interest @ 12% P.A. was also excessive as by virtue of the amendment by U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976 implemented from 1 -1 -1997 interest exceeding 6% P.A. could not be granted by the arbitrator. He has placed reliance on the ruling of this Court in Union of India v. M/s. Channa Bros. and Co., AIR 2001 Allahabad 42 (DB), in support of his above argument. Another point raised from the side of the appellant before us is that the respondent while entering into the agreement, was aware about the source of availability of material to be supplied by him to the appellant, and therefore, the amount with regard to the expenses shown to have been incurred in supply of the material as well as place of dumping awarded by the arbitrator was not at all justified and permissible as the contractor had accepted the terms of supply. The next point argued for the appellant is that the impugned award with regard to the loss on account of unapproachable site and legal misrepresentation to the extent of Rs. 3,000 was also not justified. The award by the arbitrator has also been challenged in respect of the claim No. 14 of the respondent on the ground that on account of delay on the part of the respondent in executing the contract the Union of India was constantly suffering loss and therefore, the action taken by the appellant against the respondent for the cancellation of the contract was justified and no interest should have been awarded for such loss. On the basis of the above arguments, it is contended from the side of the appellant that the learned Judge has failed to consider these important points and has wrongly misinterpreted the wordings “all dispute contemplated under the contract wrongly justifying the scope and jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide such matters.;