- (1.) BHAGWAN Din, J. All these appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 6-6-1988 passed by the District Judge, Almora allowing Misc. Civil Suit No. 77 of 1987, dismissing Misc Civil Suit No. 19 of 1987 and setting aside the award made in Arbitration Case No. 20 of 1982. Since the common question of law and facts is involved in all these appeals, therefore, they are taken up together and conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) THE facts having bearing on the controversy in these appeals are that Bishan Nath, the father of the present appellants, entered into an agreement with the Uttar Pradesh, Van Nigam-respondent No. 1 for felling, transporting and stocking of pine trees of lot No. 32 Lamgara Compart No. 21, Someshwar Range, West Almora Forest Division, Almora. Under the agreement the wooden logs were to be transported to Haldwani Depot of Van Nigam. Bishan Nath completed the entire work under the agreement in time and a sum of Rs. 9,24,001. 50 after deducting the income tax accrued due to him on account of work done under the agreement. The respondent No. 1 on the protest that Bishan Nath wrote 2 letters to the department authorising Shital Singh Parihar to receive money on his behalf, refused to pay the amount accrued due to him. Thus a dispute with regard to deduction in the amount payable to Bishan Nath in view of the 2 letters alleged to have been written by him, arose. So Bishan Nath filed original Suit No. 20 of 1982 for recovery of the Money. The court was pleased to appoint an Arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties. In the course of the proceedings before the Arbitrator, Bishan Nath expired, in his place the legal representatives were brought on record. The Arbitrator made an award rejecting the plea that respondent No. 1 has right to withhold the money paid to Shital Singh Parihar under the authority of Bishan Nath and directing for making the payment which had accrued to the legal representatives of Bishan Nath for the work done by him. The appellants filed Misc. Suit No. 19 of 1981 for making the award the rule of the courts. On the other hand respondent No. 1 also filed Suit No. 77 of 1987 for setting aside the award.
(3.) THE learned District Judge dismissed the case of appellants and decreed the suit of respondent No. 1 setting aside the award. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, the appellants, have filed these appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants challenged the propriety and validity of the impugned judgment and order on the around that the District Judge has no right to set aside the award as there was no misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator or misconduct of the proceedings. Reliance has been placed by him in the cases of M/s. Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Government of Kerala. AIR 1989 SC 890; Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Vashno Rice Mills, AIR 1989 SC 1263 ; Jagdish Chander Bhatia v. Lachhman Das Bhatia, JT 1993 (1) SC 232 and Jitendra Nath Srivastava (dead) through L. Rs. v. Mayank Srivastava, JT 1994 (5) SC 195.;