UNION OF INDIA Vs. SOHAN SINGH AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under S.39 of the J. and K. Arbitration Act, 2002 (1945 A.D.) (hereinafter called the Act), against the order passed by learned single Judge of this Court in C.M.P. No. 253 of 1984 on February 25, 1987 making the award submitted by the Arbitrator a rule of the Court and directing the decree in terms of the said award. The application of the appellant filed under S.30 read with S.33 of the Act for setting aside the award having been dismissed, hence the appeal under S.39 of the Act.

(2.) THE respondent entered into a contract C.A. No. CEJK-27/72-73 "Provision of married accommodation for all ranks at Dalhozi." In accordance with the allotment, petitioner performed the works. Afterwards some dispute arose between the parties with regard to the said work under the contract. THE disputes were, therefore, referred to the Arbitrator by the parties and the named Arbitrator Shri P.C. Jain, Chief Engineer, submitted his award before the Court, his award dated March 10, 1983. THE said award was registered in Application No. 151 of 1984 (Award) and the Court on August 13, 1984 issued notice to the parties to file their objections within the period of thirty days after the receipt of notice. On receipt of the notice, the present appellant submitted an application under S.30/33 of the Act praying for the setting aside of the award, which was registered as C.M.P. No. 253 of 1984 subject-matter of the present appeal. THE objections against the said application were filed by the respondents without filing any objection against the award, wherein it has been prayed that the award be made a rule of the Court and a decree in terms of the award be passed. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned single Judge on October 26, 1984 :-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant attacking the order impugned in the appeal submitted that the learned single Judge ignored this fact that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by holding that there was a valid reference before the arbitrator. It is further pointed out that the award of the arbitrator is in contravention to the contracted conditions of the agreement, and that in terms of condition 1.5 on page 39 of the contract agreement, no claim because of increase in rates of minimum wages was admissible and thus the award of the sum of Rs. 2,69,000/against claim No. 1 is assailed. Similarly awarded amount in the shape of compensation to the Contractor because of delay is also beyond the terms of the agreement. LEARNED counsel for the appellant also submitted that the evidence adduced by the appellant before the learned single Judge is also not properly appreciated causing miscarriage of justice and thus it is prayed that the order impugned in the appeal refusing to set aside the award is liable to be quashed and set aside in appeal.