ORDER
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The appellants had allotted the work of construction of boundary wall around Workshop Yard of the Thein Dam Complex at Shahpur Kandi (Pathankot) to the respondent-contractor. There was a dispute. Vide order dated December 1, 1993 it was referred to Mr. Hardyal Gupta, Superintending Engineer, for decision. On June 30, 1994 the Arbitrator gave his award. It was received by the Court on July 1, 1994. No November 21, 1994 the appellants filled their objections. The Court framed the following issues :
(1) Whether the objection petition is within limitation ? ……. OPO
(2) Whether the award dated 30-6-1994 is liable to be set aside on the ground as set out in the objection petitions ? ……… OPO
(3) Relief.
The findings on issue Nos. 1 and 2 were recorded against the appellants. The objections were dismissed. Hence this first appeal against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar.
2. Mr. P. D. S. Chhina, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab, contends that the Court had fixed November 21, 1994 for the filing of objections. The objection were actually filed on that date. In this situation it could not be said that the objections were barred by limitation.
3. The claim made on behalf of the appellants has been controverted by Mr. B. R. Mahajan, Advocate, who appears for the respondent-contractor. Learned counsel submits that the appellants had appeared in Court on September 19, 1994. The case was adjourned to October 8, 1994. The objections could have been filed on that date. The objections were not filed despite direction by the Court. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to November 21, 1994. By that time, limitation of 30 days for filing the objections had expired. Thus, the objections were barred by limitation.
4. On merits Mr. Chhina submits that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself. Learned counsel has referred to findings of the Arbitrator with regard to two items Nos. 11 and 11(B) for Claim No. 1. Under item No. 11 an amount of Rs. 1,255/- was awarded. Under item No. 11(B) the Arbitrator had held the respondent entitled to an amount of Rs. 6,300/-. On the basis of these two findings, as recorded by the Arbitrator, it has been submitted that the awarded is vitiated.
5. The claim made on behalf of the appellant has been controverted by Mr. Mahajan.
6. In the circumstances of the case it does not appear to be necessary to go into the merits of the contentions raised by Mr. Chhina with regard to issue No. 1. Even if it is assumed that the objections filed by the appellants were in time and not barred by limitation, the findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge on issue No. 2 appeal to be correct. Thus, it is not necessary to dilate upon issue No. 1.
7. The sole argument of Mr. Chhina is based upon the award of a total amount of Rs. 7,555/- made by the Arbitrator in favour of the respondent-contractor. It is the admitted position that by virtue of the award the respondent was held entitled to the payment of more than Rs. 6 lacs. It is only in respect of a paltry sum of Rs. 7,555/- approximately that objection has been raised. Even in this behalf it has not been shown that the view taken by the Arbitrator is contrary to any evidence on the record.
8. It is no doubt true that ‘misconduct’ of the Arbitrator does not imply a moral lapse only. If the Arbitrator does not take into consideration the relevant evidence or records of findings, which is patently contrary to the material on record, the award may be vitiated by a legal misconduct. However, in the present case it has not been pointed out that any evidence, which may be relevant to the issue, has been left out or that the consideration thereof would have affected the validity of the award.
9. Mr. Chhina has referred to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in K. P. Poulose v. State of Kerala (AIR 1975 SC 1259), Bandasi Sahu v. State of Orissa (AIR 1990 SC 1128). In the former case it was held that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself by ignoring that material documents. It was also observed that misconduct did not connote only a moral lapse. It is undoubtedly so. However, in the present case it has not been shown that the Arbitrator had ignored any evidence or that he had otherwise committed any misconduct. Thus, the appellants can derive no advantage from this decision. As for the latter case it was held that if the amount awarded by the Arbitrator is disproportionately high, the Court may intervene. It may also be mentioned that this Court does not scrutinise the award as a court of Appeal. It is only when it is found that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself or has ignored the material evidence that the court intervenes. Nothing of the sort has been pointed out in this case. Consequently, no case for interference is made out.
10 No other point has been raised.
11 In view of the above, there is no merit in its appeal. It is, consequently, dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
12. Appeal dismissed.