JUDGMENT
Viney Mittal, J.
1. M/s Shastri Construction Company has approached this Court through the present revision petition. A dispute arose between the parties. The matter was referred for adjudication to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator gave his award dated December 13, 1984. The Contractor filed an application before the Civil Court for making the aforesaid award a rule of the Court. Some objections were raised by the Union of India. As a matter of fact, it was claimed that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself and the proceedings and, therefore, the award should not be made rule of the Court. Specific objections were also raised with regard to the acceptance of claim qua items No. 8, 22 and 23 in the award.
2. The learned trial Court accepted some of the objections raised by Union of India but held that while deciding items No. 8, 22 and 23 the Arbitrator had granted certain claims even beyond the amounts claimed by the Contractor. It was further held that qua item No. 8 the amount claimed was Rs. 7,000/- but still an amount of Rs. 3807/- had been awarded under the aforesaid item. Similarly under item 22 claim was only Rs. 1200/- but amount of Rs. 2838/- had been awarded. Again item No. 23 was wrongly allowed. However, it was held that claim in items No. 8, 22 and 23 could be severed from the remaining items. Therefore, applying the aforesaid principle, learned Senior Judge, directed that award to the extent of Rs. 90,536.58/- be made rule of the court. The rest of the amounts awarded in the award were rejected. The Contractor was also held entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% from the date after two months of the publication of the award till the date of decree. Future interest was also granted at the rate of 9% per annum.
3. Two appeals were filed before the learned Additional District Judge. The Contractor challenged the deduction of the items No. 8, 22 and 23. Union of India filed the appeal making the award rule of the Court, The learned Additional District Judge reconsidered the entire matter but upheld the observations made by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, both the appeals were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. The Contractor have still chosen to approach this Court by filing the present revision petition.
4. Shri Raman Mahajan, learned Counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that although a revision petition was filed by the Union of India also but the said revision petition had been dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.
6. Shri Raman Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing for the Contractor has primarily argued that the learned Courts below have committed an error of law in completely rejecting the claim of the Contractor qua items No. 8, 22 and 23. It has been argued that even if the award was in excess of the amount claimed by the Contractor, still the amounts could be confined upto the extent of the claim made by the contractor.
7. I am afraid the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted. Once it is found that the Arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction while adjudicating upon certain claims made by the Contractor, then the entire award qua the aforesaid claim is liable to be rejected. This course had also been adopted by the learned courts below only on account of the fact that the aforesaid items were severable from rest of the award.
8. 1 do not find that the orders passed by the courts below suffer from any infirmity or error of jurisdiction.
9. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the revision petition.
Dismissed.