IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.2259 of 2011
DATED: 26th July, 2011
Lajpat Rai Chanana Appellant
Versus
Executive Engineer and another
Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Present:- Mr. Ashwinie Kumar Bansal, Advocate
for the appellant
---
MOHINDER PAL, J.
Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to claim
no.4 of the Arbitration Award and has submitted that no detailed
reasons have been given by the Arbitrator despite the fact that at the
time of remanding the case, it was specifically directed to the
arbitrator to give the detailed reasons.
Perusal of the award passed by the arbitrator shows that
complete reasoning has been given while deciding the claim no.4,
which reads as under:-
“Under this claim, the contractor had claimed an amount of
Rs.35,506 /- on account of less payment made for plinth
beam but the contractor was granted Rs.30,000/- as
reasonable amount but the ld. Court has held this grant as
legally not tenable being contrary to conditions 33(4) and
28 of the contract agreement and being against law.
However, the ld. Counsel for the contractor has argued
that this clause, as it is, is a void provision being extremely
vague and uncertain I terms of sections of the India
Contract Act as it talks of reduced profitability but without
spelling out the situation/reason which would cause this
reduced profitability. The ld. Counsel further argued that in
fact under condition 28, deptt. Can make payment even at
FAO No.2259 of 2011
reduced rate and prohibit the claimant from raising any
claim on the plea that reduced payment at reduced rate
had only resulted in reduced profitability and hence no
claim can be raised on this account and that a rational
interpretation of this condition is possible only when it is
red in continuation or conjunction with condition 26 which
confers power on the engineer in Chief for rescinding the
contract in certain situations and has relied upon U.P.State
Electricity Board Lucknow appellant Vs.M/s Om Metals and
Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Kota respondent AIR 1995 Allahabad
246. I have gone through this authority but its perusal
shows that the facts of this authority are distinguishable.
So in view of condition 28 of the contract agreement
between the parties, the claim is disallowed. It will be an
exercise in futility to give reasons for granting less amount
as required under condition 33(4) of the contract
agreement as ultimately in view of condition 28, this claim
has to be disallowed.”
Otherwise also perusal of the award shows that it has been
passed by giving detailed reasons. Once the award has been passed
within four corners of law, mathematical scrutiny of every action of the
arbitrator cannot be permitted in this appeal.
Dismissed.
(MOHINDER PAL)
JUDGE
July 26, 2011
P.singh