Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS miscellaneous appeal under Section 37 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter 'the 1940 Act') has been filed against the order dated 6 -3 -2002 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 4, Kota (hereinafter the lower court'), whereby the objections filed by the appellant state of Rajasthan (hereinafter 'the non claimant') under Section 30/33 of the 1940 Act have been dismissed, the application filed by the respondent -claimant (hereinafter 'the claimant') under Section 17 of the 1940 Act for making the award dated 20 -4 -1993 the rule of court allowed and decree passed in terms thereof. The facts of the case are that the claimant and the non claimant entered into a contact for widening of the National Highway No. 12 Jaipur -Jabalpur of Kota Section in Km. 170 to 185 into two lanes and to make geometric improvement of the road. Work order was issued on 20 -2 -1986 and the claimant was required to execute the work for the consideration of Rs. 63,66,871.47. Disputes having arisen between the claimant and the non claimant relating to the contract in issue the claimant moved an application before the District Judge Kota under Section 20 of the 1940 Act for making reference of the dispute to the Arbitrator. Vide order dated 4 -12 -1992, the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator in terms of arbitration clause in the contract between the parties. The claimant filed 27 claims under various heads before the sole arbitrator. Notice having been served, reply to claim petition after much shenanigans was filed as also documents in support thereof. On consideration of the matter by the sole arbitrator, award came to be passed on 20 -4 -1993 whereunder a sum of Rs. 26,35,146/ - along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of award till the date of payment was allowed.
(2.) AGGRIEVED of the award dated 20 -4 -1993 passed by the sole arbitrator, the non claimant state of Rajasthan filed objections under Section 30/33 of the 1940 before the jurisdictional civil court. The only issue agitated was for finding misconduct against the sole arbitrator and setting aside of the award dated 20.04.1993 for the reason that the award was allegedly passed without any opportunity of hearing to the non claimants for defending the claims set up by the claimants to the non -claimant. The court below on consideration of the matter found that the ground set up for the alleged misconduct of the sole arbitrator were absolutely false and contrary to the record. It was noted by the lower court that the whole case set up by the non claimant in its objections under Section 30/33 of the 1940 Act stood demolished from the recordings of the sole arbitrator in his award dated 20 -4 -1993, more particularly at page No. 21 thereof. Therefrom it was evident that on 18 -1 -1993 representative of the non claimant Mr. J.K. Bansal, Executive Engineer, PWD National Highway Division -II Kota was present before the arbitrator on notice of arbitration having been issued on behalf of the respondent State. Mr. Bansal however on his part filed an application before the Arbitrator stating therein that he had not received formal instructions to appear from the Chief Engineer and sought adjournment. In these circumstances the next date was fixed as 16 -2 -1993 in Arbitrator's chamber at RPS Office building RB Road, Kota. On 16 -2 -1993, instead of appearing before the Arbitrator, Mr. J.K. Bansal, who earlier appeared on behalf of the State sent a letter through his LDC stating that the State of Rajasthan was in the process of filing of review or revision/appeal in the high court against the order dated 4 -12 -1992 passed by the District Judge making reference to Arbitrator and as such he could not present himself before the sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator rejected the request of Mr. Bansal for adjournment as the grounds proffered could not be considered as he had neither himself appeared nor submitted any stay order passed by a competent authority revoking the authority of the arbitrator. Therefore the non claimant was directed to participate in the proceedings under pain of ex -parte proceedings. The next date was fixed for 23 -2 -1993. On 23 -2 -1993 no one again appeared on behalf of the non claimant. In these circumstances the matter was fixed for 4 -3 -1993 for evidence of the claimant in support of his claim petition and arbitration proceedings were made ex -parte against the non -claimant. No one again appeared on behalf of the non claimant state on 4 -3 -1993 or subsequently on the next date on 17 -3 -1993. Similarly no one appeared on behalf of the state on 19 -3 -1993. However, on 27 -3 -1993, the non claimant State sent an application again through the LDC Ramraj Sahariya to the arbitrator requesting that ex -parte proceedings be set aside and the non claimant state be allowed to participate in the arbitration proceedings. The arbitrator however refused to accept the application as it was neither presented by any authorised person of the non claimant state nor any affidavit had been filed along therewith in support stating the reasons as to why the ex -parte proceedings taken against the state deserved to be set aside. The application was rejected. On 2 -4 -1993, Mr. J.K. Bansal, the Officer -in -charge of the case finally appeared before the Arbitrator and filed afresh an application for setting aside the ex -parte order passed on 23 -2 -1993. Finding no good/sufficient ground for allowing the said application filed by Mr. Bansal, it was rejected by the Arbitrator. But it was clarified that in accordance with law the non claimant could take part in the proceedings from the stage at which they then were. But this would be without prejudice or affecting previous proceedings/orders passed. Thereupon the non claimant state took part in arbitration proceedings on 2 -4 -1993 and copy of the rejoinder filed by claimant to the reply earlier filed by the state to the claim petition was supplied. Even a request for filing written reply to the rejoinder filed by the non claimant state by 10 -4 -1993 was allowed. The reply by the non claimant state and supporting documents were taken on record by the Arbitrator. The matter heard and considered. The Arbitrator considering the pleadings and documents of the claimant as also of the non claimant state passed his award dated 20 -4 -1993.
(3.) OBJECTIONS under Section 30/33 of the 1940 Act were filed by the non claimant state. The objections were based on the purported misconduct of the arbitrator in contravention of principles of the natural justice and not providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the non claimant state. Vide order dated 6 -3 -2002 the court below dismissed the objections and made the award dated 20 -4 -1993 rule of the court. Hence this appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1940.;