Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another ... vs Shri Harbinder Singh on 29 November, 2018
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No. 36 of 2014 Reserved on: November 15, 2018 Decided on: November 29, 2018 .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State of Himachal Pradesh and another ...Objectors/Applicants Versus Shri Harbinder Singh ...Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Objectors : Mr. S.C. Sharma, Mr. Dinesh Thakur and Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocates General.
For the Respondent : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Senior Advocate
r with Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Award dated 16.12.2013 passed by the learned Arbitrator in respect of dispute pertaining to non-payment of bills qua deviated items to the respondent-claimant (hereinafter, 'claimant'), whereby learned Arbitrator while allowing the claim of the claimant, awarded a sum of `36,24,639/- in his favour, objectors-applicants (hereinafter, 'objectors') have approached this Court by way of objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act.
2. Undisputed facts, as emerges from the record are that vide letter dated 29.4.1993, work i.e. "C/O I&PH 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2018 22:56:44 :::HCHP 2Circle office building Kasumpti, Shimla-9, (SH: Building portion only)" was awarded by the objectors in favour of the claimant, for `14,06,204/-. The time for completion of the .
work was six months, to be counted from the 15th day of issuuance of award letter. As per above letter, work was to commence from 14.5.1993 and was to be completed on 13.11.1993. It is also borne out from the record that the work was in fact started in April, 1994 and was completed on 15.9.1998. Claimant was paid all the bills except for the deviated items, which were to be paid after due approval of the competent authority. Claimant raised a dispute and accordingly, Superintending Engineer, Arbitration Circle, Solan, was appointed as an Arbitrator by the Chief Engineer (South) on 23.6.2007. Learned Arbitrator entered into arbitration on 3.7.2007 and after holding 18 hearings, announced the Award on 16.12.2013. Learned Arbitrator awarded `13,27,672/- for deviation on enhanced rates, and `7,14,821/- on account of prolongation charges alongwith interest at the rate of 8% on the amount of `13,47,214/-
amounting to `15,62,768/- thus totaling to `36,24,639/-. In this background, the objectors have approached this court by way of instant proceedings filed under S.34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act (hereafter, 'Act') praying ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2018 22:56:44 :::HCHP 3 therein to set aside the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator.
.
3. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that the impugned Award is against facts on record, as such, deserves to be quashed and set aside. While referring to the findings returned by the learned Arbitrator, learned Additional Advocate General made a serious attempt to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that the same are perverse and contrary to law and facts on record as the same have been recorded in a most mechanical manner, as a consequence of which, great prejudice has been caused to the objectors. Learned Additional Advocate General further contended that since the learned Arbitrator while passing the Award ignored the material evidence adduced on record and proceeded to pass the Award completely ignoring the terms and conditions contained in the contract inter se parties, impugned Award deserves to be set aside being against public policy of India.
Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that the learned Arbitrator has colluded with the claimant. It is further argued on behalf of the objectors that sufficient opportunity to lead evidence has not been granted to the objectors despite an application having been made in this ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2018 22:56:44 :::HCHP 4 regard, on which no order has been passed by the learned Arbitrator. Mr. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General .
contended that the learned Arbitrator has based the Award on tampered documents i.e. agreement, which bears cuttings and manipulations, which have not been approved/initialed. It is further argued by the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the objectors that the deviation limit has been shown in the agreement produced by claimant as 00% whereas in the standard format of agreement, same is 25% and even the claimant himself has offered 20% deviation limit, which was withdrawn by him during negotiations. It is further argued by the learned Additional Advocate General that the learned Arbitrator has ignored Clause 12(VI) of the agreement, where there is clear provision for deviation limit of upto 50% on individual items. It is also argued by the learned Additional Advocate General that the amount of `7,14,821/- on account of prolongation charges has wrongly been awarded by the learned Arbitrator in favour of the claimant, for which otherwise there is no provision in the agreement itself, as such, learned Arbitrator has travelled beyond the agreement. Mr. Thakur further averred that the claimant has been duly compensated for prolongation since volume of ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2018 22:56:44 :::HCHP 5 work increased from initial amount of `14,06,204/- to `52,62,328/-, for which prevailing market rates were paid to .
the claimant hence, impugned Award being in conflict with public policy of India is liable to be quashed and set aside.
4. On the other hand, the claimant, while filing reply to the petition filed by the objectors, argued that the word, "nil" was not attested, for which the objectors themselves are responsible. It is further argued on behalf of the claimant by Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate that since 19 hearings were given by the learned Arbitrator, it can not be said that sufficient opportunity of hearing has not been given to the objectors. It is admitted by the claimant that the work though was awarded on 29.4.1993, but same was started in the month of April, 1994 only and was completed on 15.9.1998, due to non-availability of the site. It is further averred that though wild allegations have been levelled against the learned Arbitrator, but he has not been arrayed as respondent in the present petition. It is further averred on behalf of the claimant that the objectors, themselves are responsible for prolongation of the work and arbitration proceedings have also been prolonged due to which, the claimant is yet to receive his dues despite more than twenty years having passed since the date of ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2018 22:56:44 :::HCHP 6 completion of work. It is averred on behalf of the claimant that volume of work had increased manifold. While .
controverting the averment made on behalf of the objectors that the tampered document i.e. agreement has been made basis for passing the impugned Award by the learned Arbitrator, it is vehemently argued on behalf of the claimant that the objectors have themselves supplied copy of agreement to the claimant as well as to the learned Arbitrator, and they can not come out of the same by saying that the same is tampered or manipulated one and as such, objections as filed by the objectors are liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case carefully.
6. Before ascertaining correctness of aforesaid submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the parties vis-à-vis impugned Award passed by the learned Arbitrator, it would be apt to take note of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited versus Western Geco International Limited (2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 263, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court taking note of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited versus ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2018 22:56:44 :::HCHP 7 Saw Pipes Limited (2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases 705, has held as under:-
"34. It is true that none of the grounds enumerated under .
Section 34(2)(a) were set up before the High Court to assail the arbitral award. What was all the same urged before the High Court and so also before us was that the award made by the arbitrators was in conflict with the "public policy of India"
a ground recognized under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) (supra). The expression "Public Policy of India" fell for interpretation before this Court in ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705 and was, after a comprehensive review of the case law on the subject, explained in para 31 of the decision in the following words: (SCC pp.727-28) "31. Therefore, in our view, the phrase "public policy of India" used in Section 34 in context is required to be given a wider meaning. It can be stated that the concept of public policy connotes some matter which r concerns public good and the public interest. What is for public good or in public interest or what would be injurious or harmful to the public good or public interest has varied from time to time. However, the award which is, on the face of it, patently in violation of statutory provisions cannot be said to be in public interest. Such award/judgment/decision is likely to adversely affect the administration of justice. Hence, in our view in addition to narrower meaning given to the term "public policy" in Renusagar case 1994 Supp(1) SCC 644, it is required to be held that the award could be set aside if it is patently illegal. The result would be -- award could be set aside if it is contrary to:
(a) fundamental policy of Indian law; or
(b) the interest of India; or
(c) justice or morality, or
(d) in addition, if it is patently illegal.
Illegality must go to the root of the matter and if the illegality is of trivial nature it cannot be held that award is against the public policy. Award could also be set aside if it is so unfair and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the court. Such award is opposed to public policy and is required to be adjudged void."
::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2018 22:56:44 :::HCHP 835. What then would constitute the 'Fundamental policy of Indian Law' is the question. The decision in Saw Pipes Ltd. (supra) does not elaborate that aspect. Even so, the expression must, in our opinion, include all such fundamental principles as providing a basis for administration of justice and .
enforcement of law in this country. Without meaning to exhaustively enumerate the purport of the expression "Fundamental Policy of Indian Law", we may refer to three distinct and fundamental juristic principles that must necessarily be understood as a part and parcel of the Fundamental Policy of Indian law. The first and foremost is the principle that in every determination whether by a Court or other authority that affects the rights of a citizen or leads to any civil consequences, the Court or authority concerned is bound to adopt what is in legal parlance called a 'judicial approach' in the matter. The duty to adopt a judicial approach arises from the very nature of the power exercised by the Court or the authority does not have to be separately or additionally enjoined upon the fora concerned. What must be remembered is that the importance of Judicial approach in judicial and quasi judicial determination lies in the fact that so long as the Court, Tribunal or the authority exercising powers that affect the rights or obligations of the parties before them shows fidelity to judicial approach, they cannot act in an arbitrary, capricious or whimsical manner. Judicial approach ensures that the authority acts bonafide and deals with the subject in a fair, reasonable and objective manner and that its decision is not actuated by any extraneous consideration. Judicial approach in that sense acts as a check against flaws and faults that can render the decision of a Court, Tribunal or Authority vulnerable to challenge."
7. It clearly emerge from the aforesaid judgment that the concept of "public policy" connotes some matter which concerns public good and the public interest.
Similarly, award/judgment/decision likely to adversely affect the administration of justice has been also termed to be against "public policy"
8. Reliance is also placed upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Hindustan Tea Company v. M/s ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2018 22:56:44 :::HCHP 9 K. Sashikant & Company and another, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 81; wherein it has been held as under:-
.
" Under the law, the arbitrator is made the final arbiter of the dispute between the parties. The award is not open to challenge on the ground that the Arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or has failed to appreciate facts.
Where the award which was a reasoned one was challenged on the ground that the arbitrator acted contrary to the provisions of Section 70 of the Contract Act, it was held that the same could not be set aside."
9. Similarly, Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Sudarsan Trading Company v. The Government of Kerala and another, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 890, has held as under:-
"It is not open to the court to probe the mental process of the arbitrator and speculate, where no reasons are given by the arbitrator as to what impelled him to arrive at his conclusion. In the instant case the arbitrator has merely set out the claims and given the history of the claims and then awarded certain amount. He has not spoken his mind indicating why he has done what he has done; he has narrated only how he came to make the award. In the absence of any reasons for making the award, it is not open to the Court to interfere with the award. Furthermore, in any event, reasonableness of the reasons given by the arbitrator, cannot be challenged. Appraisement of evidence by the arbitrator is never a matter which the Court questions and considers. If the parties have selected their own forum, the deciding forum must be conceded the power of appraisement of the evidence. The arbitrator is the sole judge of the quality as well as the quantity of evidence and it will not be for the Court to take upon itself the task of being a judge on the evidence before the arbitrator."::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2018 22:56:44 :::HCHP 10
10. Reference is also made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in McDermott International .
Inc. v. Burn Standard Company Limited and others (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 181. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:-
"In terms of the 1996 Act, a departure was made so far as the jurisdiction of the court to set aside an arbitral award is concerned vis-a-vis the earlier Act. Whereas under Sections 30 and 33 of the 1940 Act, the power of the court was wide, Section 34 of the 1996 Act brings about certain changes envisaged thereunder. Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 did not contain the expression " error of law...". The same was added by judicial interpretation.
While interpreting Section 30 of the 1940 Act, a question has been raised before the courts as to whether the principle of law applied by the arbitrator was (a) erroneous or otherwise or (b) wrong principle was applied. If, however, no dispute existed as on the date of invocation, the question could not have been gone into by the Arbitrator.
The 1996 Act makes provision for the supervisory role of courts, for the review of the arbitral award only to ensure fairness. Intervention of the court is envisaged in few circumstances only, like, in case of fraud or bias by the arbitrators, violation of natural justice, etc. The court cannot correct errors of the arbitrators. It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired. So, scheme of the provision aims at keeping the supervisory role of the court at minimum level and this can be justified as parties to the agreement make a conscious decision to exclude the court's jurisdiction by ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2018 22:56:44 :::HCHP 11 opting for arbitration as they prefer the expediency and finality offered by it.
The arbitral award can be set aside if it is .
contrary to (a) fundamental policy of Indian law;(b) the interests of India; (c) justice or morality; or (d) if it is patently illegal or arbitrary. Such patent illegality, however, must go to the root of the matter. The public policy violation, indisputably, should be so unfair and unreasonable as to shock the conscience of the court. Lastly where the Arbitrator, however, has gone contrary to or beyond the expressed law of the contract or granted relief in the matter not in dispute, would come within the purview of Section 34 of the Act.
What would constitute public policy is a matter dependant upon the nature of transaction and nature of statute. For the said purpose, the pleadings of the parties and the materials brought on record would be relevant to enable the court to judge what is in public good or public interest, and what would otherwise be injurious to the public good at the relevant point, as contradistinguished from the policy of a particular government.
11. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that scope of interference by Court is very limited while considering objections having been filed by the aggrieved party under S.34 of the Act. Award passed by the learned Arbitrator can be interfered with in case of a fraud or bias or violation of principles of natural justice.
Interference, if any, on the ground of 'patent illegality' is only permissible, if the same goes to the root of the case.
Violation should be so unfair and unreasonable as to shock ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2018 22:56:44 :::HCHP 12 the conscience of the Court. In the judgment referred herein above, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that what .
is to be constituted as 'public policy' is a matter dependent upon the transaction and nature of the statute, but the same should be so unfair and unreasonable as to shock the conscience of the Court, as has been observed herein above.
12. Similarly, there can not be any dispute, as has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court that Courts while deciding objections, if any, filed by the aggrieved party under S.34 of the Act, against the Award passed by an Arbitrator, does not sit in appeal over the findings returned by the learned Arbitrator and there can not be any reappraisal of evidence on the basis of which learned Arbitrator has passed the Award. Otherwise also, in terms of S. 34 of the Act, objections, if any, filed by the aggrieved party can be considered by the Court, if the Award is in any manner against the public policy, which certainly has to be liberally interpreted in view of the facts of the case.
13. Now, this court shall proceed to consider the facts of the instant case in light of the law discussed herein above and determine whether the impugned award is against the public policy of India as claimed on behalf of the objectors.
::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2018 22:56:44 :::HCHP 1314. In nutshell, case of the objectors as projected and pleaded by the learned Additional Advocate General is .
that the learned arbitrator colluded with the claimant, as he failed to provide sufficient opportunity to the objectors to lead evidence and in this way, he mis-conducted himself, as such, award passed by the learned arbitrator, being against the public policy of India, can not be allowed to sustain.
Objectors have further averred that the Award is based upon a tampered document i.e. agreement which bears cuttings and manipulations. Aforesaid assertion having been made on behalf of the objectors is not tenable in view of the record made available to this court. Careful perusal of the agreement placed on record by the claimant suggests that it was duly attested by Assistant Engineer Irrigation and Public Health, Sub Division No. 1, Shimla-9 and on each and every page, Executive Engineer has appended his signatures.
15. True it is that there are no initials on the alleged cuttings but record of the learned Arbitrator reveals that the objectors, despite sufficient opportunities, failed to place on record the original DNIT. Learned Arbitrator, while adjudicating claim Nos. 1, 2 and 4, has specifically recorded as under:
::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2018 22:56:44 :::HCHP 14"(A). Before adjudicating , the deviation limit of the agreement requires to be studied. As per the copy of the agreement supplied to this tribunal as well as the claimant/contractor by the respondent/EE, the .
deviation limit stipulated in form No.PW-8 at para (ii) at page 3 in the agreement form is nil whereas in the agreement with respondent/ EE it is 25%. The respondent/EE failed to produce the approved DNIT to this tribunal"
Learned Arbitrator has further returned the following finds under aforesaid claims:
"ADJUDICATION OF CLAIM No. 1, 2&4:
15. Both the claims 2 & 4 are identical in nature and hence have been clubbed together alongwith claim 1. "(A). Before adjudicating , the deviation limit of the agreement requires to be studied. As per the copy of the agreement supplied to this tribunal as well as the claimant/contractor by the respondent/EE, the deviation limit stipulated in form No.PW-8 at para (ii) at page 3 in the agreement form is nil whereas in the agreement with respondent/ EE it is 25%. The respondent/EE failed to produce the approved DNIT to this tribunal (B). The dispute regarding deviation limit has also been recorded in the Technical note (attached with the deviation statement of the case) enclosed with the Chief Engineer letter No.2934-37 dated 5-6-2008. The point 1 of the said technical note reads as under:-
"The work was awarded to Sh. Harvinder Singh Govt. Contractor for Rs.14.06.204/-. The total work executed , as per final measurements is Rs.45,68,003/- which is 224.85 % above the awarded amount against nil ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2018 22:56:44 :::HCHP 15 deviation limit as per agreement. Whereas the revised A/A & E/S accorded for Rs.68,86,275/- only during March,2008. Moreover the quantity and rates have been derived as per 25% of the deviation limit. Cutting .
in the deviation limit has been made in the agreement. No initial in the cutting has been made by Executive Engineer, which may clearly be mentioned alongwith actual deviation limit in the agreement".
From the above it is clear that the Chief Engineer noticed and pointed out this insertion in deviation limit's column of the contract agreement in 2008.
(C). In the course of execution of this work, drawings and design were changed as a result of which there was abnormal increase of the quantity of work to such an extent that the applicability of the rates fixed under the contract seize to have any binding effect. (Reliance is placed on the judgment dated 10-11-1995 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the state of U.P. Vs. Ram Nath International Construction Pvt. Ltd.) In the present case quantity has deviated to such an extent that work awarded for Rs.14.06,206/- was final as per 24th running bill for 52.88 lacs. The deviation limit in the contract has loss its relevance.
From the considerations, A, B & C mentioned above, I hold that deviation limit be considered as nil.
When the deviation limit is considered Nil , the deviated, extra and substituted items become payable at market rates."
16. It is quite apparent from the bare reading of the aforesaid finding returned by the learned Arbitrator that the objectors were provided sufficient opportunity to produce ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2018 22:56:44 :::HCHP 16 and prove DNIT, so that factum with regard to tampering in Form PW-8, at para (ii), page-3 in the agreement, could be .
verified. Learned Arbitrator, after having perused the letter No. 2934-37 dated 5.6.2008 of the Chief Engineer, specifically concluded as under:
"The work was awarded to Sh. Harvinder Singh Govt. Contractor for Rs.14.06.204/-. The total work executed , as per final measurements is Rs.45,68,003/- which is 224.85 % above the awarded amount against nil deviation limit as per agreement. Whereas the revised A/A & E/S accorded for Rs.68,86,275/- only during March,2008. Moreover the quantity and rates have been derived as per 25% of the deviation limit. Cutting in the deviation limit has been made in the agreement. No initial in the cutting has been made by Executive Engineer, which may clearly be mentioned alongwith actual deviation limit in the agreement".
From the above it is clear that the Chief Engineer noticed and pointed out this insertion in deviation limit's column of the contract agreement in 2008."
17. After having carefully perused the reasoning recorded by the learned Arbitrator qua the aspect of tampering, if any, made by the claimant, this court finds no force in the arguments raised by the learned Additional Advocate General and same are accordingly rejected.
18. Similarly, record of the learned Arbitrator reveals that in the 16th hearing held on 30.9.2013, learned ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2018 22:56:44 :::HCHP 17 Arbitrator granted more time to the objectors to scrutinize record for dates/rates of partly paid items, while .
adjudicating claims No. 1, 2 and 4. Careful perusal of proceedings of 17th hearing held no 14.10.2013 in the office of learned Arbitrator, suggests that the Executive Engineer of the objector-Department failed to submit desired information in terms of proceedings of 16th hearing held on 30.9.2013, however, learned Arbitrator granted last opportunity of four weeks to do the needful.
19. Vide communication dated 11.10.2013, Executive Engineer, representing the objector-Department, in compliance of 16th hearing held on 30.9.2013, made following submissions:
"Arb. Case No. 43/2007HIMACHAL PRADESH IPH DEPARTMENT No. IPHDS-AB-Arb/(Harbinder Singh) 2013-14-11026-27 Dated: 11-10-2013 To The Arbitrator-cum-
Superintending Engineer, Arbitration Circle, HPPWD, Solan.
Subject:- In the matter of Arbitration between Shri Harbinder Singh Vot. Contractor and Executive Engineer, I&PH Division No.1, Kasumpti Shimla-9, for the work C/o IPH circle office Building at Kasumpti, Shimla-9, Agr. No.1 for 1993-94.
Sir, In compliance to 16th hearing held on 30.09.2013 in the office of Superintending Engineer, Arbitration Circle, HPPWD Solan, the submission is made as under:
Claim No. 1, 2 & 4: - Rates claimed by the contractor are not traceable in office record hence more time is required to trace the ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2018 22:56:44 :::HCHP 18 same. However and date/rates approved of item No. 1, 2 5(b), 5(c), 5(e) 6(b)1, 6(c) 8(b), 8(c), 9, 10,11 12, 15, 21(a), 21(b), 24, 25, 32, 33(a), 37(b)(i), 37(b)(ii),38, 39 & 49 are placed at Annexure A-1. More time is required to scrutinize the record for date /rates of partly paid .
items.
Claim No. 7:- The claim has already been closed during 10th hearing held on 21.9.2011 and the deduction is already on record. Claim No. 9:- The record pertaining to time extension is not traceable in the office record as the claimant/contractor never applied for extension of time.
The CD containing the defence statement is enclosed please.
Further it is requested that permission be granted to produce the following officers as witness in the case as per Chapter V-27 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
1. Er. SK Singhal r 2. Dr. GS Guleria Sd/-
Executive Engineer IPH Division No. I, Shimla-9 DA: AS above.
Copy to Shri Harbinder Singh Govt. contractor C/O Bindra Store Kasumpti, Shimla-9, for information please.
Executive Engineer IPH Division No. I, Shimla-9"
20. By way of aforesaid communication, objector sought permission of the learned Arbitrator to produce officers as named in the communication dated 11.10.2013 (supra), as witnesses under Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. However, careful perusal of proceedings of 18th hearing held on 19.10.2013, in the office of learned Arbitrator suggests that the Executive Engineer of the Objector-Department, while submitting response to the claims No. 1, 2 and 4, placed certain documents containing ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2018 22:56:44 :::HCHP 19 therein financial implications, if deviation limit is considered as zero and rates quoted by the contractor at the relevant .
time. Proceedings held on that day, suggest that the Executive Engineer as well as other party categorically stated on that day before the learned Arbitrator that they have nothing more to say on these claims and claims be closed for further discussion. In the aforesaid proceedings, it has been specifically recorded by the learned Arbitrator that both the parties stated that they have been given full opportunity to present their case and they have nothing more to say or add in this regard. Learned arbitrator has also recorded that the parties requested that the case be closed for further discussion and also requested that award be passed in due course of time. Proceedings held on 19.10.2013, nowhere suggest that the objectors-Department insisted during 18th hearing for accepting their prayer for examination of witnesses as named in the communication dated 11.10.2013, rather, proceedings held on 19.10.2013, clearly suggest that both the parties categorically stated before the learned Arbitrator that they have been given full opportunity to present their cases and they themselves requested to close the case for further discussion, as such, this court is not in agreement with the learned Additional ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2018 22:56:44 :::HCHP 20 Advocate General that the learned Arbitrator colluded with the claimant and purposely not decided the application .
having been made by the objectors for producing witnesses.
This court, after having perused proceedings of 19th hearing, is convinced and satisfied that both the parties on that day were satisfied with the proceedings conducted by learned Arbitrator and they felt no necessity to lead evidence as such, representative of the objector-Department did not press his prayer for examination of witnesses, rather, he himself requested the learned Arbitrator to pass final award.
21. Having considered the facts of the case in light of the aforesaid exposition of law, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the impugned Award, as has been assailed before this Court by way of objections under S.34 of the Act, is neither against public policy nor has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Perusal of the objections filed by the objectors suggests that neither there are any specific allegations that Award is against the public policy nor it has been clarified as to which finding or findings made by the learned Arbitrator is/are against the public policy, save and except general allegations that Award is against express terms of the contract, unjust, unfair and unsustainable and patently illegal.
::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2018 22:56:44 :::HCHP 2122. In view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the .
impugned Award, which otherwise appears to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence. Needless to say that jurisdiction of the Courts is limited and Award can be set aside only if it is against public policy of India, but, in the case at hand, neither any material has been placed on record, nor any arguments have been raised on behalf of the objectors to substantiate the fact that impugned Award is against public policy of India. Question of interpretation of agreement and its terms and sufficient evidence is /was well within domain of the learned Arbitrator as such, no grievance, if any, could be raised qua the same by either of the parties, as such, objections having been filed by the objectors deserve to be dismissed being unsustainable in the eye of law.
23. Consequently, in view of above, this Court sees no valid reason to interfere with well reasoned award passed by the learned Arbitrator, as such, present case is dismissed. Award passed by the learned arbitrator is upheld.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge November 29, 2018 vikrant ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2018 22:56:44 :::HCHP