IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT R A N C H I
----
Arb. Appeal. NO.18/2006
----
1. State of Bihar(now Jharkhand)
2. Superintending Engineer, Chhotanagpur Circle(Building),Ranchi
3. Executive Engineer, Building Division, Building Construction
Department, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.
...... Appellants.
Versus
Hari Narayan Dwivedi ............ Respondent.
----
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
---
For the Appellant: Mr.D.K.Dubey
For the Respondents: -------
-----
17/27.01.2010
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 31.05.2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge-I, west
Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Misc. Case no.12/2005 by which the
award passed by the Arbitrator in favour of the respondent for a total
sum of Rs.3,01,800/- plus future interest has been upheld.
From the materials on record it appears that the respondent
had been awarded a contract for the construction of Public Health
Centre building at Chotanagra in the district of West Singhbhum
which was to be completed within a period of one year and for this
purpose, an agreement also had been executed between the
appellant-State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and the respondent-
Contractor.
It is stated that the work under the contract was started
on 10.02.1992 and in course of execution of the contract certain
demands were made by the respondent-contractor but finally a
dispute between the appellant-State and the respondent-contractor
arose due to which the matter was referred to an Arbitrator in
pursuance to the agreement which admittedly envisages a provision
for appointment of an Arbitrator in view of existence of a dispute.
The Arbitrator, after adjudication of the matter, finally
passed an award for a sum of Rs.3,01,800/- with which the
2
appellant-State felt aggrieved and hence filed objection before the
court of Subordinate Judge-I at Chaibasa. The Subordinate Judge,
thereafter scrutinized the award passed by the Arbitrator and was
pleased to dismiss the Misc. Petition filed by the appellant-State after
recording a finding that the learned Arbitrator has not misconducted
himself while conducting the proceeding and further was pleased to
hold that the award had not been procured improperly by the
respondent. Thus, the award passed by the Arbitrator was ordered to
be made a rule of the Court. The appellant-State still felt aggrieved
with the judgment and order passed by the Subordinate Judge and
preferred this appeal.
Having heard the Standing counsel representing the
appellant-State and on perusal of the impugned judgment and order
passed by the Subordinate Judge nothing material was found which
could persuade this Court to hold that the impugned award passed
by the Arbitrator required interference by the Subordinate Judge
while entertaining objections against the award nor anything could
be inferred as to how the Subordinate Judge has erred by refusing to
interfere with the award passed in favour of the respondent.
In fact, the Standing counsel also, on perusal of the impugned
judgment and order, could not establish in any manner as to what
exactly were the objections which had been raised by the
respondent-State while assailing the award before the Subordinate
Judge. The objection that had been raised by the appellant-State
before the court below was merely a theoretical submission that the
Arbitrator had misconducted himself in passing the award in favour
of the respondent without explaining in what way or manner the
Arbitrator had misconducted. It is perhaps for this reason that in the
impugned judgment and order, there is absolutely no mention of the
objection which had been raised by the appellant-State and it was
merely submitted that the award was fit to be quashed and set aside
since the Arbitrator has misconducted himself in passing the award in
favour of the respondent without indicating in any manner as to how
the Arbitrator was in error in delivering the award so as to pursuade
the Court to interfere with the same. At the stage of appeal also
nothing could be pointed out indicating that the award passed by the
Arbitrator was erroneous in any manner so as to hold that the
Arbitrator has misconducted himself in confirming the award and
making the same a rule of the Court.
2
3
Under the circumstance, it is difficult to entertain this
appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed at the admission stage
itself.
(Gyan Sudha Misra,C.J.)
Biswas
3