M/s Naranjan Singh and Company v. Union of India & Anr.

Present : Mr. Adish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for Mr. C.M.Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. K.C.PURI. J. This is revision petition preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 7.2.1995 passed by Dr.Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide which the appeal preferred against the judgment dated 22.9.1993 passed by Shri Gulab Singh, Sub Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh vide which the learned Sub Judge ordered the Award dated 10.12.1990 made rule of the Court, has been set aside and the objection petition of the appellants was accepted and the claim for making the Award, rule of the Court stood dismissed. The facts when put in brief are like that in pursuant to an agreement between the parties, respondent No.1 had undertaken to raise construction of the office building and staff quarters for the office of Civil Revision No.1888 of 1995 2 Commissioner of Income Tax at Patiala vide agreement No.15/EE/FCD/80-

81. A dispute arose between the parties, which was referred to the Arbitrator, appointed by respondent No.1. Therefore, an award ofRs.1,20,360-60ps was made on 10.12.1990 in favour of the respondent No.1 allowing simple interest @ 14% p.a. from the date of award. The award was contested and objections were filed against the said Award. It has been alleged that the Arbitrator was not empowered to grant future interest. Specific objection with regard to different items were taken. The objection petition was also alleged to be barred by time. The following issues were framed on 20.8.1991 :-

1. Whether the Award Dt.10.12.90 is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the objection ?OPO

2. Whether objection petition is not within limitation?OPA.

3. Relief. After recording evidence of the parties and providing a hearing to the learned counsel, decided issue No.1 against the objector and objection petition was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.9.1993. Aggrieved with the said judgment and decree earlier respondents No.1 and 2 preferred the appeal before learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh Learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh set aside the finding on issue No.3 while accepting the appeal with costs and accepted the objection petition of the objectors and the decree of learned trial Court was set aside. Still feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid decision, the petitioners have preferred the instant revision petition. Civil Revision No.1888 of 1995 3 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the impugned judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh is based upon the letter dated 5.10.1983, produced before the Tribunal, in which it is mentioned that no loss was suffered by the petitioners on account of delay in completion of the work. It is submitted that the learned Sub Judge First Class, Chandigarh has made Award dated 10.12.1990 passed by the Arbitrator rule of the Court by passing decree dated 22.9.1993. The First Appellate Court has committed grave error in setting aside the Award merely on the ground of the above said letter. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon authority M/s Ravindra Kumar Gupta & Co. vs Union of India arising out of the Special Leave Petition No.3755 of 2008 decided on 03.12.2009 by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It has been argued that Appellate Court cannot re- praise the evidence. The Court should be slow in interfering in the Award passed by the Arbitrator. It is further contended that even after issuance of full and final discharge/no dues certificate, the arbitrator has the power to examine whether any amount is due with the Government towards the contract of the Contractor. To support this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon authority Asian Techs Limited vs. Union of India and others (2009) 10 SCC 354. On the other hand counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge and has submitted that the same is based upon sound reasoning. The authority Civil Revision No.1888 of 1995 4 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not applicable to the facts of the present case. So, the prayer has been made for dismissal of the petition. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the records of the case. In authority M/s Ravinder Kumar Gupta's case (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Court has no jurisdiction to investigate into the merits of the case or to examine the documentary and oral evidence on the record for the purposes of finding out whether or not the Arbitrator has committed an error of law. It has been further held that Court cannot substitute its own evaluation and come to the conclusion that Arbitrator had acted contrary to the bargain between the parties. In authority, Asian Techs Limited 's case (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that even after issuance of full and final discharge, no due certificate, the Arbitrator has the power to examine, if any, amount is due. There is no dispute to the proposition of law laid down in the above said authorities. However, the fact remains that letter dated

5.10.1983 (0-2) was on the record of the Arbitrator but the same has not been considered by the Arbitrator. So, in these circumstances, the Appellate Court was well within its rights to arrive at the conclusion that Arbitrator has committed patent error. The fact which is material for the decision of dispute between the parties if ignored by the Arbitrator, in that case, the learned Additional District Judge has rightly held that Award is invalid. Otherwise also, there is little scope for interference in the revision. Civil Revision No.1888 of 1995 5 In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. February 9th, 2010 ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE