ABv.,);j A
IN THE HIGH COURT 012' KARNATAKA AT _
DATED THIS THE 3013 DAY 01? JUNE 'A "
PRESENT
THE HOBPBLE MR. .zUs'ncE:=..;v.<LSABH§H'rr 4' f 7
M3-.____V % % A
THE I-EOBPBLE MR.JUsrIcE'"$ei§t..'s51'xd§r¢.§j§;€YA1§A
M.E.A.No,6249/2Oe§{M)% % "
BETWEEN V H V Q V
K GoPA:.AGowDA~s}o I§:R1sI§1i:Ar*§A?."- 'V
AGED % V
CONTRACTOR 3f:=1=Rm«
R/0 -'s1{p_AvA1w Is:-:)_...14;'is'1* CROSS.
M.L.A.LAYOUT; .a.T.1~aAGAR.
BANGALORE'-569 532* % %
(By sn _NANQ'flJl§'D5V ';R$x:;¥15*:} SR. ADV., FOR SR1 R s RAM.
1 2 'ms ޣ$.;NAGING DIRECTOR
.H1nmu$*rAN AERONAUTICS L'I'D.,
BANGAIKJRE oompwx
CUBBON ROAD
" BANGALORE-560 oe;
., ...._..,- ~,,_~,.,.w ..u -«
2 THE GENERAL MANAGER
A¥RP()R'l' SERVICES CENTER,
HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS um {BC}
VIMANAPURA POST
BANGALORE- 560 01'?'
3 SR1 s.M.1<APooR, ;
GENERAL MANAGER .
(LIGHT COMBAT AIRCRAFT} & "
SOLE ARBrrRA'roR, =
HINDUSTAR AERoNAU11c:s"LTD (Beg '
VRAANAPIIRA POST. BANG _ RE-566-Q17
A ,;'.';...RI§S?ONBEN§S
(BY sR1 s.v.sRAs'r_R1, AD§!.;.:'F0!:2'V.V}'{~;1 R2, 'R7-3"'sERvEm
THIS MFA --??fI§ED {U/§S{§§7£1V)"~V{}~FV ARan'RA'r1oE AND
ooNc1L;ATI0§§*'A5'. "$§}$IB§§P~»».--fi;HE ORDER DATED
15.6.2064 on THE FILE 01? THE
VI ADDL. BANGALORE (CCCH41),
'DISM§f$'$vING TiV?'!E--..V:1f§ff_f_«'«l:..ICA'I'I0N FILED U/S. 34(2)(iv) (v)
.AR,ErrRA'rxoN AND CONCILIATION AC1'.
Ci1ALLE§I'é'I:\VlGAV~f§"fiE AWARD PASSED BY THE ARErr'RA'roR
_ DATED 8--.8£'.$O3.
.. THIS MFA C{)MiNG on FOR HEARING Tms BAY,
._«SAVBH.?£H!'I' 3., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Juneganw
This appeal under Section 37(1) of the
and Conciliation Act, 1995 (herein after
the 'Act"} is med by the applicant in Ar§)it;?:'a_j*;i,g:'x:s§_.j:$i;1.*1c'
No.55/2003 on the me of v1
cc:-1-11, Banglore City, k%
application filed by the zisgecfion
34(2)[iv)(v}{b){ii) of the amps passed
by the Arbiu-ator dated a.s;2ma
this appeAél_virith' ranking of the pattiw
berorggtnaxriél is as follows:
was entrusted the work of
Pcximcter Road (Balance Work) foam
to south wast corner, 09 end magaxcy
4' I115 mm in HAL Aerodrome Area" tmder the
UH?'
contract No.HAL/255/99-00 and the work mfi_{3*!' _!".%&3_
issued. The work could not be
applicant due to several " 'V
respondents-1 and 2 and during' '
certain dispute arose
respondents-1 and 2 the
contract, the matter under
Clauses 31 er 1.,,O?;)ndilio11s of
Contract. the 3″‘
respolltlent. and the Arbitmtor
passed an e Being aw-is-wed by
the award dated 3.8.2003, an
Section 34 of the Act. The
Judge, Banmm, by order
the application filed under
$4 Act. Being awieved by the said
‘ has preferred this appeal.
\9»J>
3. We have hmni the learned Senior oouxfxscl
appearing far the appellant and the ”
appearing for the rcspondcntswi and 2.
gq,-:~.’\o~:’ k” :1
4. The learned
appellant submitted that V»
considered the claims wifix
mremuce to the and the
impugned orcflex-f’: gfidcr, as the
contentions: 34 has not been
consideimdj’ be borne in mind
While filed under Section 34
of the; Act mmama and withaut considering
V’ “the in the application, the
been dimissed and whmvdore the
inipu%1g¢r3.. is liable to be set aside m the same is
alga unaér Section 34 ofthe Act, in the eye of law.
\,04JK
5. On the other hand, the learned
appearing for respondents»: and 2 submitted _
Arbitrator has considered the clai1I1§ and the u ” V»
order holding that no mounds
Section 34 of the Act for gsi£l’e-gxassrsd. VA
bytheArbi11’ator,isjustfied. ” %
6. Having to by
for V. V
the application’ flied
the Act calls for
J _; in V:-h{s appmz?
A Aflanswtx point No. I in afimaiwe.
.. of our answw to point No.1 the appw is
to be aliowed and to the VI Aaamomx
application med under Secfion 34 of the Act that apart
from reiteraung the pmciples to be borne in
cansidemg the application under Section t
the contenfions raised in the ” ”
Section 34 of the Act have not at lyeeeti
merits with reference to %’ 3 t
by the Arbitrator the the
order would point ‘4’i;*Sifi«(>;app1ication d’
mind for oonsiglerstiosef in the
applicafiieiiv Act as it is observed
in the
_ V V6.1.’ the award reveals that
with each claim and
_VVg:.-“eves reasons for coming to the
_ and to disallow the claim of 1:13
A The Arbitrator even not
s::fin’ately discussed the individual claim,
._b11t discussed as claims while they am not
“allowed and which are to he allowed. The
\y./~
respondents also made counter chain,
which is not ailowed by the Arbitrator.’
It is further obscured as follows:
* The Arbitrator
reasons, it wiflmcct the emis ” TA
the party win he hm-i§1:.V.wh§’-.t1:mV¢}a§mi._’§s.
disallowed. Each
not separately,
claims which are
10. Arbitrator fer
d’sanow§ng”me}%% bea1″‘_”V””{4:=onsidez*ed by the
Addmonalcity he has omy stam ma:
w by the Aadiuona; City civil
Jadggk suit was as to whethtr the
i in the application under Sectim 34
% the Acaééaras with refererne to the reasoning mm’ in
the Additional City Civil Judgehasonly
\»»
I9″
stated that the Arbiuator has gvcn ‘”—for
disailowing the ckiim and has not consideI’6,¢1._”f”
whether the said reasons are jusfimd _ K
arbitrary or capricious as
under Section 34 of the Act. and is” ‘V L’
that the impugned order passeafiy WCity
Civil Judge cannot is
non~ooI1s17dc1’atio;; of Section 34
of the Act Judge in the
setting’ a ‘s1d_’ ” for fresh consideration I
of the “éf under Section 34 of the Act
Accordingly, we answer point
. View of our answer to point No.1, we
W H K sénwagr No.2 as follows.
\?-J’-
t11et1’ia_§’Ju(Ig¢V *
OER
The appeal is allowed. The V
in A.S.No.55/O3 passed by the VI
Judge is set aside and the ti) Bf
Additional City Civil .md ge_ ‘ did dispose
of the application afresh
VI Additif:V>na l’_A dodML2s.7.2oos to seek
further iI1SAfa.’T§.l4{}’ti(}I’1i$.’W”it1’llV issue of fresh not1ce’ by
Sd/..
Illdgg
Sd/..
Judge