IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Arbitration Appeal No. 6 of 2010
State of Jharkhand through the Executive
Engineer, Irrigation Division, Jamtara ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. H.P.Biswas & Co., Dhanbad ... Respondent
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
------
For the Petitioner : J.C. to G.A.
For the Respondent : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
------
Order No. 04 Dated 25th July, 2011
1. The office objection is dispensed with and the delay in
filing this appeal is condoned.
2. It appears that by the order of this Court under
Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
Arbitrator was appointed and the Arbitrator passed the
Award on 28.07.2006 and accepted the claim of the
respondent for Rs. 33,78,490.74 along with interest @ 9%
and Rs. 75,000/- as cost.
3. The appellant challenged the said Award dated
28.07.2006
before the court of Sub-Judge, Jamtara upon
which Arbitration Objection Case No. 50 of 2006 was
registered. The learned Sub-Judge rejected the objection of
the appellant by observing that none of the grounds raised
by the appellant fall within any of the clauses of Section 34
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence this
appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
4. I have perused the Award, copy of which has been
placed on record by the appellant on 25.02.2011. It
appears from the Award that each of the claim of the
claimant and counter claims have been considered by the
Arbitrator in detail and the Arbitrator rejected certain
claims raised by the respondents and awarded above sum
of the amount after considering the facts which were
placed before the learned Arbitrator. Before the Arbitrator,
the appellant also submitted counter claim under various
heads mentioned in Sub-para I to VIII in the Award, which
were disallowed by the learned Arbitrator. Learned counsel
for the appellant submitted that the learned Arbitrator
committed error of law by awarding interest @ 9% and also
submitted that Award is against the public policy.
5. In spite of raising these two points, learned counsel
for the appellant could not substantiate that on what
ground award of interest can be said to be illegal and the
Award also is against the public policy.
6. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any merit
in the appeal of the appellant. Hence the appeal is
dismissed with no cost.
(Prakash Tatia, A.C.J.)
Raman/Birendra