- (1.) HEARD the parties at length finally. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 12.2.1999, passed by learned Subordinate Judge, 1 st, Dhanbad in Title (Arb.) Suit No. 87 of 1989, whereby and whereunder the Award has been made Rule of the Court.
(2.) SHRI N.K. Jha (the then General Manager, Civil Construction Engineering Department, BCCL, Dhanbad, whose named was suggested by the appellant) was appointed as sole Arbitrator with the consent of the parties by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by order dated 16.1.1995. Accordingly, by order dated 15.3.1995, the entire disputes arising out of the agreement dated 25.3.1983 were referred to the said Arbitrator. The respondent (claimant) filed its claim under 17 heads, amounting to Rs. 18,99,173.71p alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. The appellant preferred counter claim under 5 heads amounting to Rs. 30,91,257.20p. The parties adduced their oral and documentary evidences. After considering the materials on record and hearing the parties, the Arbitrator pronounced the reasoned Award in question, allowing claim of the respondent in part/ full to the tune of Rs. 6,33,124.40p against the claim nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 14 and 16 alongwith interest @ 14% per annum from 1.11.1985 till the actual payment. The counter claims were rejected. The respondent prayed for making the Award rule of the Court. The appellant filed objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 . After considering the respective cases of the parties and hearing them, the Award was made Rule of the Court. Against the said order, this appeal has been filed.
(3.) BY order dated 17.1.2001, this appeal was disposed of by passing the following order: '' Equivalent Citation:2009 -JX(Jhar) -0 -1154 "Heard the parties and with their consent this appeal is disposed of under Order 41 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Award dated 30.9.1997 was filed in Court to be made Rule of Court. Appellant filed objection thereto, under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, inter alia, on the ground that contractor's claim was hopelessly barred by limitation, as it pertained to the year 1984, but the Arbitrator decided it wrongly. The Court below did not consider question of limitation and made award Rule of Court, by judgment dated 12.2.1999. I, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and remand Title (Arbitration) Suit No. 87 of 1989 to reconsider the matter and after hearing the parties to decide objections to the award, including limitation and dispose of the suit in accordance with law. This appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with aforesaid direction." ;