The Chief Engineer Karnataka Health ... vs J Chengama Naidu S/O Not Known on 6 July, 2010

[Cites 10, Cited by 5]

Karnataka High Court

The Chief Engineer Karnataka Health ... vs J Chengama Naidu S/O Not Known on 6 July, 2010

Equivalent citations: AIR 2011 (NOC) 7 (KAR.), 2010 (4) AIR KAR R 221

Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, N.Ananda

 

  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNAT
AT BANGALORE

Dated this me Gm day ofduly. 

PRz«':sr«;:N'1'   ~
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE 1) V sri*z%Li:ji§:i5RA'I«;i1MJs.R"  "
AN1)* _V ' V  A  1
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTiCE'N_ ANAN1jA' "

Miscellaneous Fr'r.<:t /kg-9.p}';-(1! :'V_Q___., 'Q "  ' 

 

Between:

1. THECHIEF I§§\1(';}'}«NI§3EI%.L   
KARNATAKA 151 r«;A;;;T1--:1 E;3Y;?;'I'I.2MS. _ , =
DEVELOPMrim.1--JR<'>;;_1a:(Li'-L7,,,V  _ 'Q
PHI BUII,DIN(.}.  S1--{Arm} "1~~2(:':A1l>';"
BANGAI.r.).R_E" >._s<)(.; M I . ' ~ .

 

REP. Eéy1'1?S <1 H1"1:;::*- .I§i'Nrjj;'r1w--Ii£:;.a' '
SR1 DAYANANIJ   
AGED ABOUI7 so 'rT:'2/\"RE>.- V  

2. 'r'HE.E>: ECU'I'I'\»'-I-QA 1s:Nc.;IN;«':1.«;R.
. , KARNA'1'AK.A H E3A1';'I'1f*.I_..b)-'*8'l'I~1J\/IS.
  DE:vEL0PM'E.N1' PRO.}E(T.'I'.
~. . DHARWAE). ~DI\.%'1s1< > N. IT)IS"I'RI(T'l'.
 _ 1:V;i().$Vl:')'IVI'1VL:1l'I.j' PR'1=:[.r\_/:'1}::sI¥;.e1;
"mm;-zwgn~;:)1s;'.;'R1("Ii . . API'I<I-l.I.;'\\*J'b

._  Z1.1lI3kz--1.1'. SI'? R  Gu1..:Ja.1 81
Sri Rj_Bhad1*i. Advs. for A1 zmd /\2--1)ctEct.c:cE]
 n T
  "s.R1}J" CHENGAM1-\ N./\IDU
_  2 MAJOR, s/0 mm' I-\'N(,)\-VN
"R/A'I' UNIT NO,.'%. III 1«"I,ooR

 SANJAY 'rovv1«:122:s :\.='o. I93.
SUBBARAMA ('.HI£'l'l'Y ROAD



  .9 __Dated 2996-1999 Rs

3

2. The appeai is ag.;'ainst_. the order dated 
passed in Arbi1':rz;11ion Suit N0 37 of 2002. on the  
Additional City Civii J1.:d_ge, BaI'1g'e1l();'<> city,  '
filed by the very appeile-n11 herein  :9 9

under Section 34 of the Act 1'0; .:§(?tti1V1';{  .}'_1v\.\.-';;1_1:§tE VA

dated 3043-2002 passed by the 'i i1 1" (-;.s_'])ec1'
of the disputes that alvse   hc.'rei11 d}'1(.i
referred to for arbitA1f_a1i()1'1v.A...i15i;/ii.(*.t'§.Wi*L/T. {Gﬁe'.[(if$n1iss<-'-(.1 by
the City civil   1'e1'1'mi1'1e(1
intact and      

3. Undeif  hi-18 awa:'(i(*.('l £1 mtiai
sum of Rs   01" the 1.'<_-*sp()11<'Ec'):}t--

cé0ntraCtC§I4."V p1.-:rp()1'I £91.19' to be e1ge'1i1e:sE' four bills whi<'h had

vbeelli' '13r,ese;;1tAed"vA.by the (:ont1"a.(?110r for payment. (Jul 0!'

SUCH ~*Jﬂ1.5«\X.?i3iuCh_ Raid been ;)1"t;'.<'se1af<'('l timing the \\?<>1'l<.in;{

 ofthe C6htr};iet.'i;c~. rmmingg bill Nos 1 to 5. as ck-i.;:iie(1

_  * 9

20,60,52e.09
_14,57_51o.0Q

   "gated 1291999 Rs

Total Rs  18. Oi,'>b'.()(f}



with interest at 16% 3.a., \V!'1i(rI'1  worded bv the
I _, T T

arbitrator as under:

Interest has to be 1..1_:or1'ted 01.: t at the rate Q]: '.t'(33TF'.?t;  9'
till the date Q/' release-1 Q/' payrn¢1.1.I,_a.:1d_*'(1dtit-ad»
against Cll,UCU'd 1'11.'3*'<'. 4"' and 5"*:Ii'A _bii£s."«_j '7 '

the employer had filed the .21ppli(»'a2'1_t:'i<'11'1 1j1--1j1tte1* se§'%t--'Etr.11'1:V13:4 (St 

the Act. seeking for the award to  aside-..  ' 

5. The subject 1'11.at'tc=~1'R"   . bcrfo1'e the
arbitrator was in_  x'Vhe1\ri11g been
awarded in  exec11.tin111 of the
rer1oVati0r1 V      the g(.J\*'(.'.I'1 1111e11t
hospital atv:V'S'irs:_i   letter dated 
1999, acee13tir1g~.,tt1'crVtyfte13/sq'a't5t_ation of the ec_)11t'1'av1<)1* i1'1
response:}°~tG.,:.:t11.e. te1;1dI::1'ss'Vi1'1vited. by the employw and

W].'v1'€31_9"<':'tJ.V9I:93_C)'.I3e :.§tg.1}:e'en1ent dated 19~3--1999 was broL1ght

,a,.,.__..i»nt0  the p211't,ivs;. de1i11c-3at.11'1g the 1e1"1'1'1s
-.c0nditiO':I__i'S of the eXe<1L1t.1'o1"1 of tl'1e work and 011 2t3m3~
 parties signed the C01'1t.1"a1(_:t' after the site :11
 where t!"1e work l'1acI to t;)c cx.et'11t:ed \w;..~a l1a11(|ed

 'over to the posseSsic:)1"1 of the c*.<'mtrac1.n1' by the e11'1p}1:)ye1'.



6

6. In terms oi" the ('ontra(tt.. 1111:: work in cluestiuii was

required to be t3X(?(.'.E,il,('.'d by 25--9~2000 and it z:1ppca1r};~.i:'i*ie"'p_

period had been exteiicied up to 7* 1 12001. H.§'5t=*;'("i-Tit!"iii?'  A '

further transpires that the enipioyer, .161? w1j12'i1.'._ever 'rt-';iis{;;.1_s:;.

may be due to the diSsat.isfa(Tti('>1'1 'wi1ht"the "wriiilg ,L'.T.V\'.'E':;~..F'

appears to have }_;iu1. an cnci to T'1"i«':'j"'\"'R=T.(')]'}{ tVf)y__i'i24;.:A (V"*v(')1'41'V'{~.vi4"t!V1.("'Etr)!'
on 3--9--2001, whereupon. ,-there .w';>;e1;:e=; n_i".f.)VV"i'1_()E'.(1 oi"";~'.a:"-~<A">V;.)(r on

the part of the Contractor t.()'ex'eCt.1t.i?' :51 ny "fu'r.i.he_r work.

7. We may i'_idt<e* ft'ii'1_e.i£..V ?i'i1{... <::'}a_l..r..rs-asit'i'iiei'1E.i(>1m.'% wiili

regard to    extrat-1. £'rom the
Summary (.5.2000 and 1.m~ em RA.
Biil is dated   both 0b\.rious1y inisiakeri
,dQt5_S  :?¢T=s.1sﬁ§'i:*Va-:2:.'1: the 4*" RA. Bill was dated

£i'I]._d  '5}'' RA. Bill which is p1irp0rtii1g" {'0 be

'tOWaTdS,_ﬁ.11'1lfl.ﬁ;j\g§féI'}{S exerwated t.i'1c.1'c>.a'=~1i'!.er could no: l'i£f1\f(".

-ﬂfbeeri withi';1A"ab0ut a mm1t.}'1 i1'm.rei'n)11'1, but within the

it'-'.V.xextVerid«€.Cif_.§€'I"i0d which had been ext.<=::-11cie.d upto 7. 1 1.2001

 any rate at least upto 3.9.2.00} on which time the

Vtti«..:A'e-mtpioyer terminmed the {'.()i'11'I'E.I(.'I it.>;eii' and tliereikim the



7

date of the 51" RA. Bill sl1(.)1.:l(l 1'1e('ess21:'ily be 16. l(.).2()__(_)1

and likewise the date of the 6" RA. Bill Sl1()1]«l:(l'.::.lﬁ')«{'fll"g 

17.10.2001 and not 17.10.2000 a-2.515 i1'1(.li('a-1te(1'713;}::l't':l:ie:~.l

Arbitrator in the sumn'1z11'y of aw:-11'(:1.:WW-:3 say b"(l.)""l:('J'rl' llllt', 

reason that the 6*" R.A. 1-am pm-poll'-1--Vn1;;"lo 

damages for idling of men andll:"1.€§1'ct.l1i1'1ei"y__ 
be for the period s1.1bseqL1e--nt. to    1X'('31'l€'i1"1§_{ by
the contractor as had 1)eel1l   5*" RA. Bill
for a sum of R311.    4.1 1.2000

which means t=i11lat'lb_"2'.l'fc~."'we')1"1»<:.j?jw';';1s_ l'ij_>éiv:_1£g_.§.. eXecrut'ec1 1111 that

time and  is  _I.1'_1r\.l~llll111o1-1 and r1m(.1':i1e1c&ry
could have  l€'c'-1.81' upto the date of
terminat1p'r1 of the  the employer whi(':1"1 \m.s; on
    idlixagg pcirriocl, should be in

  t'l1er<-sfore the date of the 6*" RA. 173111

 should h'eC(--;'eea:"'ill1y 1.'ee=u1 as 17.10.2001 as the bill is only

._laft'erx "the period  over and the Az*bitratcn' 11;.wing

the date of the bill  17.10.2000 in the

7 '  s't1rIirf1ary of award o'bvic::»L.:sly is a 1nista.1kc.

W



8

8. It is in the l)zu*l4g1'<>1111<1 oi" :e1.1a'l"1 t'e'1(:I'u;.t1 1n;11.1"ix. t'!1c
dispute arose in the 1n;:'11'.1.c.-'1" oJ'pe1y:11c111. of 21mo1.u'1i c:1;.1im.cd

by the contractor. pm'p(,)1'ti1'1g; to be for the work 
till that point of time as also 21 i'm't_l'1c.=1' (-laim  
the period, a eiaim in the naI1o1n_-_V ,..,ct>l"__4ic11§:"1t'1'g;""
towards idling of men and nu-1tn:1'ia:l:":.  
according to the c():1l.:'ao[r__):'. in:  
execution and compietion of the'   ht.-:. 111..o€.i{rc.é<i
that the contractor had put'   :1 sum of 
26,98,136.31 C-'.'.>{.V(,-"':l..L:::"f,"§v]j_\"'('_'.E~\'.:':'IN' of men.

maehineryyand _A\/(V'EtSIv£1§7§(t:'.'(Hf.iﬁE;ttf:Fi}.1!.5 at the work site even
beyond th€ 'P._e'I"iK)cl' 'wot' '».¢A"t)1,\"1"a,iiT5_=i'('tit from the (Lille of non-
settling CfE""t}1.€ J[}'V1ll"C_1VV i'£innV';i1't1L:2; bill <.'lz11c-rd 29~2--i2,0(}(.J up to

t'hVedateH'of t:"e:1Afm_":ii:._'r.;_';1t:io1'1 of the ccmt met on 3»9--2()0 1.

h  Prior t(.)..t.h§"':' n'1aI!'e1' g()i1'1g_>;. I:)efk.)1'(' the zu"1)i11';.a.Im'._ it.'

..t&t":«.appea1's, i1'1_ternL$ of the ;)ro\e'is1'o11s uncler the (t<)1'1t'1'a(.?I

4'~._VxbetV.}een the paritiies viz.. c*la.m.=.sc--24. 1'(*e"Ldi:'1g as :.u1(.E<'-*1':

@/



24. Disputes:

24.1.1)' the contract believes that a ci.em's[on7 
taken by the l3rrg1'I1ce(.>r' runs" <>iiI"1er oulsidc  
authozities git'-LPII (0 file' I'£n_(.,ri:1('?c2:'.s; b'1_,I'FI_i'1(-> =. 
contract. of mm' (,.*'z<-* c1cc.'z's1'.ur: wc'z.=.;_ 1,:;>I"c;»'~-zg{£';.;b 
taken, the clecisiorz shall be  3.10 .;«{I;.:> _ V
Adjudicator witihin 14 days Q/" t'}'1'-ria Iz.o£,§,f}2:'aiz'or'z.  " "
theEI'£gine€r's dc?('fsi0:'1. 3  '  V '

the matter had btTL'11 ;:)!;1<t<:<'I I')('IH()]'{' "c'*...!_1'DE!(1_El.t(1i'€?--?1_1A()']: fig lhis
Case one 8 Shiva1'21_§. 2.1 1':'>.1'i"i:td -'_('l1;'cfu c?3j1;;:ii1.e_ca1" :-- &--inf] the

dis ute beinf 1'e?«'ia;11'(li1'1r-->' ,...1:1,1m.1i'1«!"V, 'ci("<>(_)i§'t--:51't:"' l')i".'~3 2»-md
:---.. r:»_ .V 5:» ¥ _ ' ,

interest as per f:_h3§: p;%i:I',i_t,.iQ1'i.ci'.'7_ ihc_4.£'ct=;ﬁ:3;i('._:'tk)r Clalcd I5--4«

2001, the rf1V('1'j'itld1'~<:>};:I'.(">r .v€.'.'iiJ;.'1(1_j(»fQ'CLi1S.i(')_1ViNH") look into the .+s;..m'1e,
and had opined 'Il;Ii:\':f§'.' ('.'ﬁ"_'I;{'.di%'l a<_*t':i011 tﬂakcm 11);,' the

employer:dVepa1'{m¢41':Vf...for'*1'c<f?over'y of par: of flu: e=:<I\.='a11<.:v

I-51m0a_1ntvL~fr 015?r'a'A ()[11fl' of 'r.f1V<5m}'"".--1_\»'mcrrrt In 1.l'1€ <-m'11.rz1<*1'm' ;-=1:.;'21i11st

thé 'i:~:_;n's* .. V'p_;'é:-.: €'T111fE.~:d for payment' (T()II1IT1('l'1!:31ll'EE1f€/

x ""Vproporfionate1;§)}'t:he sl'":ort.fall of £1\='.':1ili'i].)lL'. materiai at the

'"W'.Sit.eV"'in Tc0mp2'iris0t1 to tho rcqttifsiic-*. n1a1eria1, Wl"1i('.]'1 was

s tQred *--9..t' the site'. liaving 1'Cg&iI'('1 to t.l'1e amou111. of

Trf1'0bi1izati0n E1dV8.1"l(.'€" which hem! bwn given to the

M



 
10

Contractor by the c1'npi0yer.- The a.1(i_jL1di0at()r lmci whiie
opined that U16 (_'(31_n1'ar:1<)1' wa.-; vaztiéiwl in vl2ti1n i:1E(;-jg-fs:

on the Value of running,;' a1ctc.-(0)u1'1t bill Nos; 4 and 
towards idling charges was declirmni to be  '
the reason that it was not part at"; 
referred to the aC!jL1dicz;110r in t'.ea'rn;é:'0(.)i5.A_"i.I*ive 
petition dated 15-4-2001.    

background, the mailer w«;;'1;1t bc?ifc)'a"c«..iL:'1'1'aﬂait.1'at'.t_.;r. 
10. T he contractor in his pléexdirigv  'arbitrator

Put forth c1;:;1i'rn:=.a.%§i*:>f ¥,:i:1::§51l"€'}1'  

«    Amount Claimed

a) Claim LLf1d¢r'.Vth:_-"i 310.?-I " ra§*1r'u'ng
bill. A "   '-

.-gb) Im':§3reLS'f pCL_A1'jC£bVl_(_-."__'.v on the

V f"ur1r1vi'ng '="bilI" ~_/mm 17".0.3.2000

" -by--v._vwh'ic:i5i" it should have

been: s'é£;£:léd_}'  rate of 24%

p.a;. V 

Rs._1.3,00.4 72. 3:2

 ' C) Claim under' the 4!" rLLm'u'I1g
" ._  Vlritierest payable on the
A f arunjung bill from 04.10.2000 Rs.28,66.0I1.74
"'=._ "(da§} by which it sixould. have'
 --._ b'eér1 settled}  the-'2 rc11<2 0/' 24%
 _ _4 _p.a.

0/



11

iia) Claim ilncler i.l'1e 5!" l"I.lI'll'1ll"l_{}
bill

b} Interest payable on the
running bill ﬁom O4.I1.2000
(day by which ii sl1ou.ld have
been settled  the rate of 2340/6)

p.a.

The Claimant is (3Illl>ll,{o'l(i lo doniages 
Rs.26,98, 136.31 {Ar1nexu.re-Olacrcordmg lo the 
details given hereurider, in i'l1e_6f"F i"l_inning'a.i1d_."
part bill. The acljildicaiof §'Ol.ild~, hot' have
refused to cfonsider llie'l<'lain1falicll"ilie.uo'rder is

not a speaking order.   V

The Cliximarii is, lalso"e'n1ii'§.ed io <:u.rreni
inle:'es'Ll'"d1.y*i'j;'1g like p--ei'iod. oj "p}'octeedii1gs as
well as till ll.JLl.i1f ..c_ia.te"il'ie.,._amoiiro1i is settled ai
the raie of 24 % per as-:1; l°i:;l'll._.

l *  

_   Claiiliirxm"lprays il-ta! this Hon'l:)lc\.
V' '(,?L_lfl1OI'll'y _n?'La_i.; be pleased to pass an award
 _ _*f3r"ais':.lrh;..o]fTR's.72.80.551.08 (Rupees S€U(3Ill._Ij
"Eig_l1'iy'"Tl'1oi.1.sancl Five Hundred F i]'i_1_j
one & Ei'g"h_i7paise only) along: IUl'.l'l'1 inieresi. at
theraie oj'"24% per annumﬂ'om ioday till the

 date" Q/':.pag:7'1e:1t for cosis Q/' the arbitration

 salad such other reliefs as (his Horfble
_ authority may deem _/'ii imcler lllé"
Vcir'c'umstances o/"il1e__]'acls of the Case, in l.l'l(.'

  ilnterest o/'_jusl.ice and é3ql.ll.l_lj. §/

Rs.-4. 15.9:;o.21§A'

 'Rs..4z5.8--2.{4_l  l s. 7



12

11. In terms of the pleadirigs, the ('()l1l',l'8.C1"()l' liad pot.
forth claim on t'h<=;-' premise of :1on--pa_yme1'1i 
running bills v17... 3"" and 4'" running 
13,00,427}-32 and Rs 28.66.011.74;vi*t9A$p'(,etit:el3gt«iti:1:i'i<i xtli--e' 
fifth running bill for a 81111] of    
interest on the i'1.11111ing_g bills  4~Vl   
addition, put forth 2:} l'l;.!l:"'f_'1iv~"|,'(',l' it   Rs
26.98.136.31, as pa rt. of  11:: all. the
claim made by   Sum of Rs
72,80.55}.O8  1§;ltt[¢t;" ;)r 24% M. from
l3--9--200lijt'ill_'v  of the &l1"l)l§l'L-1l'i()ll

proceedingslf  it ,

l2. 'V€mp1()yV'€:r..l_VVi>t,iI'lilt* l'aotue'.1lly clisp1,atled lwg» t'l'll'.iT§\

Clainias n_Vot,o_vr.1eV payable in terms oi' the cotumct and

while. "_"_i7o_1"'j,reje('tihgg the claim in its entirety. a1lrs_'o

 urged thettlithheéllclaimant has to l'DEll((? good the Cost of

 " ;;.biti'alt-i.or1.

M



13

V13. Further p1'<)11';-.1Ct.i11§,{ the p}e:;';1di:1gs. the (_il21i:1'1£u':1_~

Contractor filed 1'ej()inder and the e111p1(')ye1' 1'<i'S}J(.4)1].('i"-E3(Vi"'-34'o:C_ 

by filing further repl_V.

14. It is thereaftel' the 2-11'1o)it:';it():f:  
contractor. was not sat'.isfiec1' __f§viVt:V1'1  
decision and it appears i'1z1'_c1. held:V:1sV:1'1:1;:i'r~1,y as's'c'x%;f;1Vs§it.ii11g
for discussing the issues  amci for 21

good measure a1s()jma__de afsivte.v:jnsp.e<:i.i(>Vn«szahd it: appears

  

While the date ,iS "1'1..(')1;;~..l I-_r:1:'1t«i:o.1__1;'v:'>d. it  said to be bc'E.wcen

24-8-2001    

15. What t'ra11 spir'edV1';.h'e1jea.ffeif. it  easier to quote '!"rom

the award' of Lﬁhﬂ than for this (,'.()l,.l1'i to

'1"eCapituwl2.te' or smnmearize and w1"1er1 put in 2: I1L1.I'1'dI'i\-'C',

as ﬁ}._€V'ﬁi'biVtZTéIE,i()i1:v"iJ.i'()('TC(¥diI'1gS laeing' formal pr<)w3.c:(1i11g,'s.

not Coﬁfor1--ning" to any procedural requirements. the

._ m'anr1e.r_ 111' V'\)vhic.*.l'1 the 1')m('eeding_§s go zzbom in :"(%s<.}i\--'i1'1g_{

 'the disputes between the parties £h()ug§h ELSEJ'€.)1'H)1'1'1i('Ta1

 '  (;--!.aV.i.fr1"s are put forth. beiore the zxrbiiratior by the \x'2_':i'J'i11g

4;/J



14

parties and the eiainis more ()ﬁ("I'1 thzin not I'L.ll"1l1ili(£{_-IQ

several crores and in Eliis c"a.~_ae about eight million i*1,.i"})é'es"f".-_ "V

it is always I"c1Yht'?l' (.iiffi(.'11ii0 for 1.)er.~a()i1s fariiiliai' iiiij t4li"1'i§.fiV£l1"'

proceedings either to imdc-:rsiand (:'i'7mi:c')"appi"(:;c:i_éii¢_ i1'1~e}

manner in which me arbit1'ziimfs _g;o f>3.i5(.iiit fo'r_~_i ;521s*siii:g'--. "

awards! For C01}\-'CI}i('l}(_',C sake}"i«2. v'\:<rir qu"o.t_,e*-fé='('_)i'i1 ijhe
arbitrator's award on this;a~~s_13e>(_:i of %he"rz1att.er. wfiich is

as under:

Based. on.  e-.2c;j.er"ie§:gre--...arid Hie jacts wi'ii('r}i
were pre1:;er'1--:!;e'gi 1:0' 'ri.ieA.'f}0_i_j'*vlzcariig fiartiies 1 am
pleases-d--~to Q":7_Ue 'iffy-'2_c_ii-a,§aifd ii'.»i.-1.l'1.._d1uijusti/icaIfori
aS_fOi_l0uJ3\: ' V  --

(iCi'(1i'.I?1'CJJ'i'1E?i£i'i_i1"'Q[ R.S. min 24% inieresi
13.e0.:;72.82A..,aéiamsz _/'mm 17.03.2000
4; ' '' Bid R./-i'-.» Billidi. 0 29. 2.2000

V' 'CLi't'£Ig'8 Eqigirieer' i.t?i'1O IUCIS in charge 0]" Hie
;:pTQj<_E'C'.1'] » 'u,?her'i----. the .15" and 2"" R./\. Bill. i_verc

 . pfQCe'sSed .and paid had made some part
'payment 0;g.aiI'1sI B.O.Q. in the ﬂems. No wf'i.ere
if""---- is  m.e;i1iii0r1c.*i.tI "'Mc1.I,eri.a.l.~; (:1c"1L..ir.mce" hill.

_ Therefcre par! p(.1_ljfIl.€III.S ntade in the r'L.i.nr'ii'ng
V A.a.cucoLU'i.l bills are d.eeniea' as pr'ouisi.0n.a!
.vpa'g.n1e:1ts and have to be regul.arizeCl only in
 theifinal biil. Su_Ch ur1u.)arran(.'ec.{ recoveries not
only create conipI.icatiori.s; in the CbC,'(..'O1LHIiIlg
" process but also ('1(".'( as coi.uiI.er pI'Odu('I7lit.'(' 10
the oﬂieruiise smooth pr'ogr'c'?ss. T'11ere['cn*e

$/



1  ,'§34'-.C?/1;';,fr0.11'1' 04. 1 1.2000

.15

recovery in 3"' RA. bill against. B.O.Q. {F5'§;4.£?Ijf»V.'V""'

Paid in the [31'€k11'()t1.L; bills 11.:1:z;~.'; i)1'(;'II1CltLu'£.'? .19111(t" V

hasty. During ('.110 site 1.'-1';»'1'1 on I£).()I.2O()2."-._tl1c.ﬂ
arbitrator along 1.1*1'1f1 pet1'1.1'(111c11-1111a' m;.:;'::;1'11~11:1'1;1.1  V V
has physically .<;een. in the 1't)1'111'c1cfto'1."5~:'.<;.r'_t1.i«_v._
store stock of' 1'nate1*io.L.»* si;1._('l"1;""a:.'s 1CJ_o'(>1_',.§;. A It
wL'ndows,ﬂoo1' t1'.1'cs. elecI1*1f(ral 1'1f.("1'.11.L;\<«3I,(.'.. 1.1,.1J'.t11'c..'l"1 ' '
are meant for the project' _("1=1.1d (I111 5(.'u7'I(.*v.V/1i"£1<;'"*' 
been recorded 1'11 {I10 1'11.s,19ecft'1'011'111010. V' V'  V'

.zf11'*11*-..Qé11e1j::.+""'_ " 

B111 amount. 1.;/' Rs. 1-:3_.0(§1;.4:72--.=§f21«.1j_g112--1.1p1;»1.»1;
Thirteen IJal~cl'1:+-arzct F1)1:11-.1'1.1111c1f1..21;1 c-911:1 ";'s'1~.e11,1e111_1 1
two only} S"];O'L'$13d_..b€' paza11001411;111311.-11-.11111211151 (C11?
16% from. 2009  .,1.1._p--.." to the d.at'e of
Payment to the3(.'o1it.1"a;.it:j;~.,  '  '

b} o1ct1111{'1:g'a31-7.514' 31.11} 1.1.1:-vic=1.'_ 5m_1'1%./1. 131115

4111 "a"'1.. 1415. 28.66.001.74
13.09.2000. t1111;11'1..11-11111111-1;».«--,~1

, @,24%jro1'r1.04.10.2000
.5411}.  R./1.  11.1. 12.11. 4.0150:-10.00
I5. IZOIQCJEJO 1.1.=1T(f'1 1'.1"1teresI.

mart  j;:s'é:2s1 

It 1s"se'1:11"/1-ma: d1's1'11.~;.1;1'o1'1.s'. (;.~;(<:ri1.r1.11§1(1 of l1,r'I1:1'.~;

and '.s>.t_at,e1'1'1e11.1s e(c..'.. that. the depc1.1'11'11c1'11
10110110 ignorc?(I (711103 1'1(.11.11-> 1101 gzven (1111;
'1_c'o.r1séderatio11 to the Claim as because 111.0

C'-ontra.ct executectf the jobs 1'11 1.>1'.olat1'o111 of thc:

 ..__C.ontrar.'t w1'tl1ou! git.=1'11_q due 1'1'11'1'm(1Ito11 to the?

department. and 1'11. the ab$(~.'11('(..' of"depart'1111e111al
engineers.

V1



16

This is an c:uv'ea wile-1.>I'e am: has (.0 be u:_?1jg;',V
careful and cauu'ous. There is no doubi i:"1c.'L1_'.--i:'Ic.*"
contract' terms and corzdii.r'.ons are alLL.'vaz,rsiVA_c".
meant' to sq./'22gu.ard d(;'pc1r't'I11e:1t.'§V >it1t.er¢:ﬁ<§'i'"ci£~:e'i('i '

punish erriug contractors'. Hut.fkf1(' Zf':z.c,_ .<:.a:'n'e " V

should also be ens:z_:re('2' that c.r.&;:4iic'nj1's~ic1kenf*€1o A'
not' in any way d.e]'7eal the uery ;.Ju.rp'O.s;e Q/V .'.4S!L',!1'f}'lV '
actions and unc.ieru'u'r1e depa1jtI11e:Aii.".s £I'Il.(3-.'!v'(,'S'a_'._V.""'
Unfortunalely in (ms case 't:£epr1r'lr71(ei'i~I_ fociic (.1,
rigid stand usiuch has led LaiE:oicr£._Vcoilap:;.e_A o_,!':
the site and ('he 13:'agr:es5_'céc1(uc~.'.__i:). "'a_gI':':'1c1irz_q
halt, at a mule r.ui"1eri"663%'-pr;j§,I.v'eSe5§ had beerr
achieved and (he p:'Qjec(  u".?a$"'~T._':::i1e>cz:'1'::g
c0fTI1'Dletion,   1 .V 

Other C011S{dera.IfQ.Ic1.s a:j_e'.' 

a} I21/01'kV"v,ffiaSi--1:;;:_.Deed -._a:.ua:=d.ed. to class I
 WI): 7.C.or11i;i'a(. Iovrwr_'.Ve. _C_hengama Naidu is
 recogiii2}3dM »ecdnj;rar;t0r* u,:z'.th adequate
re'soL'u'ce. V.e_e;»a})er*i"e.{1&,fe"' and capabiiity cgf
deliz:«e_rmg III: e 'gaodfa

 Tfie Job Awa.s....lbeir'1g executed under l.J'1e

 .~§~z'ipe}v_isiot1. Q/' executive engineer.

. D__haff'1:;a.1a'd_ [Jim's ion u;i"1.o was being

 a ream Qf en._qr',neer.<: and

sLLpei'j_wI§;()r's of ua.r:fou.~; rcmks rzuaz'
crategrjricas.

 C)  Frcrm the slatememts of both. the claim(,u't{_

'ﬁand respon.d.enl.'. (here was no dearth Q1'

 executives and sLz;.)erm's()I's for ef/'ec'.'l.i:,.-c
control and ._<:;u.pe:'m'sio:z. of u.>orlcs. Regular
attendance at site was (here. on all the
daysfrom both the sides.

-V



19

reiea.se I!'u's amount" along ma'1h. 1(_fi'.'/u
i11l'eresI /}'0m 04.10.2000 to the date (:3/A
release Q/'pagrrLerLI to the c:'0rtIracI.or.

iii] 5m RA. hm dz. 16.10.2000 W 
41.15.930.00 (Rupees Four Ialcfls K/"§';"}f'._(."'eIV:-._'" 0
U'lOLLS(.II1d nine !'1.:Lndrc%cI <.uu'i Hti:*Ig_e:-:!..;;;]"~..  0
Same as above ~ l')e1;)}:1r'I:::ae:Az.fLf.e ':sif'i(3.¢rir.1 
release the CU'?lOt.U'1l'_/'0I'U'1 z1_«~g'1.l"a;.rilong":..:'z"za'.'.r ~. 
iI11.ere._s*I. at  I 6%_/}*Or-2__z ()4. I A1".12000e.1i}-;e:'_i«.,«_M 
the day Q/'relea.~;e q/'1';-<2,g.L"ic.i(z'(; ;_)a_zg('7ie.r 0' 

C) Other clairns cLgqi:1sI_ «.idIeA l_¢r.h<j'L.:r.

M an hinery a: 1d ----pIu:_e1I.;.' cc; a$i.}*e;I(e>vr'1:0r1_
Materiafs etc. 6*" RA     '
Bill cm. I 7, 1 0.26190.  '

Czai::e_c:«::.1Q;-1.;-z:0 Rs. £25: 9é>:."1;iisj:5.,61'V:'

It is a"_fCLCI'ijijaiuZmzge'.ﬁ1or1ey"'amoLu1ling to R5,;
45,82/£14.56.gIg;q2.:z'Ucz1er1.£ --.'.:O 37% of c:onIrr.u..'i'
value}"'~_u_ia._s 'l)icJ£.'.*€<'?ci 'buz_.fe*--!,'1"igt? I'(?s1.)c)ri(1'eI1f mic! an
the same time 'mci'd(-,~ ,.II"re <"'<)mr(,u..'t0r resp<e)rLs;rf1)£<-.*
for Causiﬁg cie£a;._.,« frj the pr'Qje<r1. ()bui.ousIg.,r no
contractor can g:y_"/'c)I'c:*i to pump in money agaiI'1Si
u;.i_c"é2rt:c1Ai:'LI.;AL; u'iiI'r"u:»t.i( geriing (1 work Q/"

V-A 0,$SUI'ClI.1C9:1/}f{;)I'I1 the c;,>n_qine(3r about I'esOiL>ing

'the  The c:o:zt4r'a<_'rt'or has been kept

 .u}(1£:irig«jb1f Coﬂsiderale)ie period t". e. more than I

ye_aLrs. _Th'£?5'V!'Las obviously led. to Er;/'mctzmu.«;
and avoidable €3.'(p€I1di[LU'(3 10 the corLlr(.u'!or

,  besideVs'1-caust'r't._g Im-;'ut(;Ll (1_cjoIzg_.;. szgj'/erilgcj. los:~;
" '(,fpre'stige eicx. and other Luu;1c(:omz1'c.1ble
 _ EQSSCS.

Even on 19.01.2002 ciuring 111;; siie z'nSp("'c.'!im1

"it was seen 1'i'zc1.I the c:rorm"cu'r1..or Hat! rnai:zIm'nc_.~(I

a site Q_[fi(,'€. super:n's0rg_; .~;I(.g/H"/I :.rr1Ic.'l'1 and. u=c.'u'r!

43/00

 



20

costly COf1SlI'l.i(_'liOll rna1'erial.s etc". The coniraetor
is compelled to m.aini'ain the site establishment
until the department taken ov«:?:' the site and
release the (_1'()I1.t.ITl(_'lOI' Q/'his respo:asibiliiy.

My (éonsia'e1'aliorz is Ilia! r_.ili)out 66% z_t*?::~>r'!c._Vi'v
iuhich 'form siibstantial p:'ogress_V_i'iV{;is=_"

alreadi; been <'ompletecl. a.I~t;l':.r-_->4 time of

RA. bill ctr'. l6.l0.2()()O, '1'1_z.;_{rq/a;~(_»"_m.c'--.=
Contractor had no neergl 7.__/oz" l"t:'_(it»*_t.; _
constriicijion T eqilip.rner11.s.  E0811  _
manpower require:r1eJ::it"w<)zzlcl have t..)ee:z"''' '

mostly skilled, (.'Cll€gOI"t,,tﬁ._t feel 50%_o'/" ("neg
contractors ('lriim is :'e-¢;'i;~;og;at3te. ' "

Award against idle taljoiir ilrt-:.:.iV7(.'!:'tz'r plant
--Rs. J3;49_.06A8.OO  V   

Total awa;-;2_';     

 --------    (S'(:i}'I"l-ls.59.3.1.()t)()/ 2

(Rupe'e%s"1?'if'ig;_ l'\;7.'!i.l"l"f:.?V 'i't::i.llc';!-35_.t'l1irIgt,I one tl'1.oiiswi(t
only}   ' 

Neei is

A 1'). 3 InI'.'ere's.i has to be Luorlcerl out at the rate

 T. "of_'a.15'V%_ till the date of release of payinent.
am;l.._a'cl,_ded against aiuara' in 3". 4!" and
5."? Rﬁ. Bills.

 ii} " TFie:'e Could be genuine crlerieczl mistalces

in the bills ctr: This has to be uergﬂea' by
the respective acCou.nI_'s from both. the
sides at the time of sez:'t.l.ement of clriirns
and making final p(.1_i,r:'nen1. z-'\rl9iimt:_>r

may be kept in/om'iec.t cg/' snarl? (.'()I'I'€('l ion if"

any.

$/



21.

I thanlc Ulci? Ch.z'cj_/' Engimecr'. KHSIJP for the
facilities provia'ca'. for smooth c'ora.c:iu(.'l of tin'
proceendirigs. I also Ihcuik ail 1:)ar't'ic:'par'ufs from

the respondent. and pe1oiIior:(.>r' for the V

u)hole:'1eari'eci co--operatz'on. which has €I"I(Lbi(-'(1"... _ me to fulfill rHg_j re-?spo.r1s:'b:'li!.'i<?s as arbitrator. 1 4'

16. We are quite aware that ;;ﬁ}:hg--:::

Section 34 of the A01' nor. an V21]3;.)eE;aV!_' passed on such a petition is against the award of the 'i.é:::mc'h()-:' an application 'Lll'1dtIi' St-r(',i.%()!"1 34.; of :=i'ie.'oi':ly c':'1i'1m' to set aside the avxraoifai. i'i:bﬂﬂ?C'g[;()lIl'if1e5W&1S are Cl"1l!1'1'1i'i'&1I("("i in Section 34 of the AC1:.aJjf'c'_ »r1'".~a1Ci~e»~t)'1.a1: by the p€.£.'S('Ji"1 Ht-re]<i1'1g for settiﬂg' aside "':T.,1V£'z1w'e1:9'(-1 dz' 1'.l'1c: am-'zu'ci bec()n1c.=_a .=_aus'1.'>e(?i 1-or unteexzabie-or1..:he tc)iioi1stor}.e 0i'1:he siatiziory ])I'(_)V_iSi()I'1 as 1I1aS.i_ibei:r1T"*i.ndiC:ated by the S1ip1'eme Cflourt. in the Case oNGc__L1fD SAW PIPES LTD [(2003) 5 sec 705], W iothiérwise toieave the award as passed by the arbi1.1"am:.'_ The scope of an application u:'1(il(-:1' Section .'3<'-1 oi' the is only to set aside the award or to leave the em-'21rd as 12/ 22 it is, without. being (li.'r3f,ll1'b('('l. and the Act ("l('){.'51-SVl"1'('_)l provide for any viav-inedia, 1m')rc:*. so W1 e:.1pplic21ii(')i}._é*:nt':lé}'::

Section 34 of tho Act not l')ei1'ig in l_l'l(' 1'12.1iiu1't' (}ll"'4,.1.Vlll'l:{:'l~'. {iii ' appeal or a revision or a I'€'Vlt3\N of :'~{i"ic* 'elm';-ird pass';¢_n'i the arbitrator, but the awarci,_gct',i.ii1.gl"«vitiaitocig.:ri1_1l£' illegalities such as beiiig &'1\.'¥l'EIilVl:l':'El ClVl.l~'l_E"[l"'*l':Sli-ll i.1tory provisions or the seio4tiicrd'l__¢gal pA1'inr'i'}1lc.sllapcepizcni in our legal system and enforced in_oo_Lir*rf._s.

18. Before (1.:-.lVl;lA1l:'.i1'.ll..[.l7t.;..l':l'}_§.7 C*..l"'llA§::}l()_\_,/FE.'-E' C01'll('lI(lt"(l {hell the award .»was.oAli";1bléii::.io int: mainly Lirgirig the following gi":,_)ul'n_(l S: V' '~

1. .,The "p_e.it'iio'r1er- sltbnuts that the azraarcl ' pa.ssed"'*-bi; g-he Arbitmtor is not in 3--5L'Ccord_(1.r1(remi,i:fi'i1 the law. The learned ../-irb'I1£r"aI:Qi'/ respondent No.2 has (Jilly ' ._Co_nSiCi'ered the pr'oCeed.ings and dGi."U,l'I"1'E?i'1IS produced by ("he responch-*n! _l.'.-fo._l}' and pass-eel an crr"c)nc3.ous C'll_L'(.'U'(.l . Lu}1icl1 has caused }ie;?c:z1.:g,: loss mm' 'hE1r'dsf1i;) to (hf.-'I' pe{ii.iom3:"s. Hericr? Jim award is requi_red. to be set a..<..;i'.de by the-'.' Hon'ble Court.

The R€SpOI'1(1c3r1i No.2 has not. properly t'r'1ter'prcied the certain (.,?lczu.ses of the 23 contract and shui: his eyes to the legal aspect submftrled _[br the cor1.sideraIion j and passecz' an erroneous aumrd agcu'm;I_m~. "

the pe1'iiior1s. '

3. The respondent No.2 fms_/'at'iec'i to'.[f(qI'mu;z"

the procedure and apply lI.1e..p_1'Qui:s'ion$"Acjf chapter V Q/' the /:\I'bi.l_Jf'Ci£OI'u'_7 *eznc__z"' concil1'ation Act 1996 in 1.»;ez~auon " to corelducr. Q/' proc'eedz'ngs hc.a..«:"--n(_)'i-- (;[}'t;r'€:e*(1V proper op[)o:'I1.u'tiLy. (.o._V_l'!"tVe peI§iia'QrzVe_r.V !"I'<_3"' Arbitrator passed an &u._L;a:*d' in'c:.AV)"11eir'rg__j; u)ii"hoIu[' gaining (;r'2_u 13;i0pef'~--.(1h-(I 51.;/_5'f'it;:::'«e:u7 oppor1'uru'Ig_,: to 'i.'.i1_e}r3et,i_'ti(.>:zacre:

4. The respondent, V .i':c"{s Vic)!"~..p:"')f)<e1'lg;

exan1ir1ed'E--l1e cf_ioC»LL'm.er?"I."cir--:.d 'co":r"aieI1I'ior:.s raisedf _rh.e4§ pefItiog'ie_:'S'. V' "}'1'enc:e the Arbg'.'U7a?_0r"f-':'a'§i /'ai£e_d"£c_) "'e_oVf :'.:I(-3,110 the proper (3OIlCL'..l.*'aI':('-.f):::§V :*egardzir"1g ' '1'.I'1e cictirn cg!" UK' "

19. In add1'tfon," dVL11*'i;1g'.t4f:e"(::ourse of the arg1.1:1'1c-rnts, the lgearnecfwﬁouflsel 21p[3e?g1__;f_i_;1.g for t1"1(: employer bt;*.'f"(n'c' the CVi'V_iv1'QVC')'t;1I'Vt'..1;1'17gt'.C1' *thaf the award is also vifiat;e-rd for $110 reason G*f'i1: be¥i:qg§= opposed to the public: policicc; of £119 country an,d'11rged for sct'ti1"1g e.1esid(;* the award (T()I'1E'L'l"Idi1'1g theaward is primarily vit.iat:ed for the reason Ih2:«1i' it an award covering aspems bey()nd the scope of a/ 24 reference and the exainiriz-1t_ion \\-«*2-is not on the t'mz<:~!1>am--:.:1e of terms between the partic:s.

20. The learned judge 0ftl'1c trial (?()urt whilerir>I.:i'p'cd'-Ihe factual position and other e1rg{1.1:'mr1i'ts. ;'(.m'l3€:i1;i'!fl'z>i° {'"i:.¢f"*1./.' applicant and the contractor, ",fl.?'()'i"._(."lt1ClAt".-Cl thatl._\-wiigl-111.. of judicial opinion not to _LllSl'1ll'b_...E}:l:l'..£ll'bll,l'al ";:n;.\iaij(,:!5: the-11 courts should be slow in ("I ('LiIlI'](.)l sit in appeal like t.lr;e"ll;i'\«ra1'c'l oi" the arbitrator; that. pli--i's::fn\yiihiastcr and it is his exclusive"vd,él"i"lt1i;i:'i'f:,; 1:0 CVi(lt'11('t.' ijefore him in him and it is not open for the C0_UrtSll awarti on the 101.1c1'1.s'i<)ne qs.;alit.$?l"(m...t:i*ie quantity of the €VlCl("1'l€_'t'. that waspl3{'Cf3d"befc$i'I3_V11'!-1e arbitrai'01'. in the sense i"!'"1e-:1 on the it/.,,.,i«'gr0und,_Of i13ad'ev(;;iiat:y' of" evidence, an award (_,'t1i'll](')l be

-. l.l'_j~.d.i_sturbed 'i:gi1applicat.i0n under section 34 of the Act even that t1'1e evidence placed by the pd1'l.i{".$ lieforc the arbitrator was found lac1<in_;{ b01:h in q:1e:1!ii_\/ and , // A ''q.riantity. , 'V 25

21. The ledrlled jLidgt,.' of 't.l'1e triz.-1} ('()1EI'{ z'ct*()1'(it'=(i liis findings on these as;pe<_'is as unctlerz

15. The allegation of award l9ei:.1Q_ e:'r'(_2'r'.tet)iaSj.. ' illegal and oppo.~.:ecl to piliblie'policy-i'.rio_t'-- sustainable under Secr.34"~.qﬂﬂrbili*at[io_ti and Concilialion Act 1. 996. 'IThe~.Arbit§rfc2iAtor*' is the final arbit'e'r'____"fQr the V (Zlwl'S}"V)£.vIlL"':E§V""

between the parlies arid it is r'1o'l~.op-e:-i Ia challenge the award on :'i~li_c<a"gr'oiir'1'(;l--.tlgal;3 the Arbilralor;_ "has d_r'Act:l.}:1 '~-lilis own conclusion or has;['cii.lei_ci§tC ap,If::eC'iat:e the facts. Courts carmo_l s'ill)stit~Lite[_'ils§--~ own €Ua1'~1Cm'0l't ._.0f 4:-1e' 'C;'/};~'?,C'."ll«.'LVS\.1'.C)r1V- C?["*lcii.li' or _/'ou':t's ;lo "gcor1'h1e:i._ lo *th.e" Ac}ohc?.l1.L.§§:ior'1 that Ar'bilr'ator'Ij_Vhchicl. aCl.ed c.?orLtr'ar'_L; to t lit"? bargairhz: " ' be l1Tueef'i.'.fftl-ie v..;'pci'r;tles. Wh.(3lf'1er"

.l);jCil'l';.1:Cl,.l}?(ll' tiﬁi'??'l()Illl1l"1.l)Ci.§. 'iiabvle to be paid is ('Il({?(3Vl.;'<§'l.*j';V'l'.?.__ i1i.>it:l'"u'_ri"-tlie _i.-orrgoelency of the A_rbitralor9~,'l.'l:'1e'*_(:'o1ir*t_. t'(.UUI.Ol' take upon ilS8U'the*l9Li'r*a.:=_ri"of"Sayt'r'tg that this l.l_.3(.1S (7OT1U"€ll'lLj ole, thel'~.-Contrc1c.'t and as su('l1 ' "beyoridji_.u*isdic'riior1. [fan a view taken of co_nl'ra(.5t."lslae' decision. of' the Ar'blt.rc;it.or t of; _C:ertai:*I. amoLmt.s- awarded. is (1 it "p.oS$il'3le'*. mew thou_ql1 perhaps not llie "o.r.ilg_ (:oj*i'ei?( view. the award cannot be €<'.')C.(if'l5,l'i'T"l'€d by the coiirl. Where the :-.iea::o'r1s have been given by {lie * AAt'.bit'r'at.or in rnal~(t.n_q the award the com'! eanriot exarnine the rea.soI'iableness of _« the reasons. T he Arbitrator is the sole judge of the qualii.y as Jell as the

-quantity ofeuiciellee and it will not be for the Court to take upon itself the taslc of a/' 26 being ajudge on the c>uide.?J1c:'e bejlbre ('.110 Arbitrator.

Consequently, the Ina} (.'()l!l'{ dis1'nissec'1 the &,:i})},)}i('?.£1ﬁ'1'~Q_li~._ filed under Section 34 of the Act. El. is :;1ggrievec.¥l'_:«B};r"

order, the present: 21p1;)e2-11 under S<'C_§i()11 3?"'(_)i'----jj_}v;(4"=A(~1 preferred before this (:ouri:.

22. We have heard Sri ZL11fik2l1".._ }'eg11~1-':c?(?1 .90111:15;-1V°if(i'1*'the appe11ar1t--empioyer and S11--i_R Na:-z1'mj_','--Ie;=11'1'1ed '<e'mA::'a.:é.o¥ for the I'€Sp0I'1d€l1f.--C()Ht1'a(3I,()I' 'é1_*L_"g_{'1'-ei'it'V }§jii;;§t;h Emcl over a. number of days.

23. In betweVe1'LM t.I*1eVre-.:w2'1s'*..a§i's«:)" 2.111 eff01"1 made 1.0 explore the possi.biv1i_ty of €"\lje"f)e1rficrs 1't:<_:o1'1c__tiIi1e'1§§ 1'.her11s.c§\«r<--'ss with :'reg'a'1'dV to Iérprxapensai;i0n 1:'he'--1I" can be paid 10 £.i.ac;> respnnd'erit:-etnjt.1*;ic.t0r in substitution of the award of the M a1'bitrattar 21€__a°t)2w.e' ag1'ee.a1f>Ie to both 1."):-1rt.ic's and in avoid a "'c1eciei.r)n_0n"1'.he merits, which can poi.-3sib1y give (tamrse or seQ}')e._VVfb1'A'either party to take it up further in appeal to :3.rip"reme Court etc. V 27 32.4. An arbitrat".i(.m proeeed.ing is an iiﬂornieil pm("ec('ii11g Conducted by a person \»\-'h<) is E-1("('It:'].)I.';1b1('.' to both pa-irti_<;s. who have agreed to abide by the dot.-i;~si0r1 of the 13¢'-'_i'V':-';a_)_'i1'";.,V"'*. Such is the origin of atrbitrzttion })I"()(T€Cdiﬂ§.{EL_';' H Simplest meaning and (ici'i1"iiti(_)n oi' &.LIM1m;lI'bit.i"£i1t.)1-"-TiﬁV.t"Fi21.if he/she is an iiiformal adjudieat'.oi:_, \-\fh_('):v 3-.rt.t'.ri'1*p1'sV.'arr; f resolve disputes between parties \2viIi4iQt.i't.V_be.i1'1gj;E;)t_"t.1'{*re=d* by procedures and laws and to t.1_i'e..V_})est:V' his;-}tstE1;{ri'1'<::riti and the parties agreeing to a1'bide'__ByV_ti<3_»e deeis.iVo_ir1 g-SI' the arbitrator without: «:lem1.u'.

25. If thetpereepti_(i1'i:"0f Et}'4i'V'i'.%._l"'bi._1I1"E1t(I)I' is to be am:eptc-.t! in its original or i3ﬁ.Vit.i'a}V c::_)1 1\.§.e};t.'~;i' the p1*(')("'e<-~Cli_:"1gs ht.-1'm~<> the :_a"rb.itrat(:)ji"~should ij)€xé1'i"';*---{~:~':i"1Vd in itself and 1'ic)t;hiri,gg bc_v0nd.

26. .B't1_tM..1 uvrit@,rt:t:iViv1éit.ely. the arbitra} proceedings are not it left to séttlev-..b.y=ifse1i', but has been made subject. I'I1'c1Hit:'.I' 01' and the Arbitration and Crmeiliation Aet.._ "1996 1Sfj_th"e present form of .'51.3('.h 3LfgiHi&'-11i()I'1. l'("?__£__{ll]E:lII'Ii;_-1;' and Ct)iﬁti'blling the arbitrai a;iw2;ird._ iI'ISpiI'£'C1/i1"121i'1(12:?1I('(1 by the V 29 parties, Speedy and cheaper. It is considered to V be the best" tool to 'enable the parties to t preserve and continue their cor71rner'c.ttai"-,l ._ relationship without. adversely affecting tl_1£;»:'i"'~~ businesses of complex nature in the rtioder-rrslet. up. The most broadl_i_; r'ec*og:ii'sedmAl)R.o1"'i'~*~t:l:1'e international scene has been. and will ;_3i--'.ol.w;il.7lt;«. continue to be, arbitration. Arbit.ratx"_on.--r' betrig it creature of contract. compels th_el"parties_~_t to address the procedures u-'h_tc.l_1 nvi.l't~.co:'itrol_ tl~.:e.--._ resolution of a dispute and. uvilt:._ilsut*tllj_}, address the question of Lt}l1Ct__l_llstvtlﬁsvlcttllittt?_l(1tt'.v:§ J any. should govern the "dt5put.e. Forurit selection is also the .7cho.ice{_'Qf"rthe"parties. Parochial interests rntty be"representjed and balanced in the rt1al§e'ttp--of a_p,cjinel_, tvivhile the president or. of =t.l1e pr;ine«l s'lioitl_t_:_l_freflet:t as much nett_t.raliti}A;jlla;s tvlije_p-arties fu:islj1 to provide. It is resorted.-4"'t=ol'as= t'lie.'.'."l:)es--t.tool to enable the parties to}. p:'e:s.e:'ve and-....continue their relatt.or1sh_ip'j_rontgtthe"~i.:;e:'{,_,r _'l9E'§}ll'lllll1Q till the disposal'oj"t'h_e .tVit',9.l1IJtVtlb({i'5.l"FJ'__ﬁl'1.€' parties havefull control 'over t'l1e._pr*oice_d'ur'e that is to be adopted for the set:tlement__Q]'7.Vthe.ir disputes. Arblltra--t.--io'n and Conciliation Act. «J996 "been enacted by the Parliament in L :dtschar_g'e_*-its international obligation (just ._upon"the.,_c*o.u:'ttry after adoption of the model tau) by."tl_t:--:-" United Nations Commission on International. Trade Law, in 1985. Though the Arbitradon Act of 1940 was enacted to searc'h for an" alternat.ive forum to thc-r interminable. consuming. complex and expensive court Cprocedure, proitidiitpj an alternatiue_]'orum_ less formal, more e_[fecti.ve and speedy. yet the mat; l "in which the proceedings were conduc'tet.'l under the said Act and challenged in the V 31 regard. I sha1I_I'ec>l happy; cmci SCItii'b§f£'€?d if this . book of m.in<_.= p1'oocs ii.c?l;.g/iii to the l<'((';(1_'iv _' profession. the I3c.=:u'h.. the (.i:'i__)i!.:'aior.~;. V business Comm_unii;.; ctmd the inn' 5-:1e.iderit,.'s'.__-*._ "' The present iaw is totally ciiffere_ni' fii'(il"11"xil']"("tipl'§:n.-{iVj%§b(_g'iVi$'hi' Arbitration Act, £940 [.i'01' E-3l'1(')1:"[. 11ie__ understanding and int.e1'preti11g» p:'ovi.sions=. Act, the 121w as ii:--is 11't>é75 C%\(3:*[i?c*'.l'v<':7A1:§>tV>V:("ie'-._bY °'i;~(-m 1'15 interpreting the Provisions" not be of much use.

28. Even __vvl1ii~eawhgitV(,:51n.11:io1tfi {.)]'I(']"]Of]1('T!'I(}I1 i:l'1at courts Ca11Kin'evitabiy:"~.not.iee__ i1':_the xvorkingg of i__i"1e 1996 Act, is and 1'i»'1«i:.l_iev2* ii'i_)iiix;..:é1i«I,}? the 1nz:z'1m==r1' in wl1i<.*i1 the arbitrationI}51'ov()ee(;l'i":'1g.ss._...i':ave ('.i(-"\ft'f('}})("(] in t1'1i5__s (>c'nu'1t,ry "¥..__has only' 1*erit.eré1j_t«:::d the vic>\v:~;; ("X].)I'(.'H.5't'.(.] by JI.ISH("t" I\ 1-' even under' Act zinc} the c:ieveiopmente t:l':(~.1'e,di'i<%ti'. ) in t1ae'w0rl<.i1'1g of tile 1E')4() Act and even now the 'j._'_""uvo1:9RinVg'"of the 1996 Act, has not [T12-1('It' rmich ciii"i'c>renc'-e to phenomenon of the Iz'1t.1gI'1i11;;' lawycws and \-V('(.'])il"lg V""Aph:iI0s0phers! but more :"ea1isi',ic:aily 10 the 1.1i.ter dismay 43/ 32 and disappoilitmem. of the liI"i;3;2-1.:"i1s (';u1;_;I1£ in the \x-'ei'.)" oi"

these arbitration pI'{L)(',(-''€?Cli1'lgS. '

29. A_rbit1'ation ]j)l'(')("E?('(li!'1gS. iealve atom'-r 3 ieave alone bf;'i1"Ig ine.x:pe.:1..~.:;ivc-:r. iv expeditious. has only 1'c>s111Vija-ﬂ' [innumerable judgments of the Hiaoi necessariiy COI1sist.e1'1t. this phenomenon}, has ioeeom_e" lTfrTi.iviE'i€"i:' -t~*xpe1j:.~;si'\r«;~. {for the iitigants with the {Eli-argeﬁ bfy,ih£~---«--:>1rbii'.1"ators and members ofi'lega:I'j;»i"1'2ité:i*1"1ii},r'appeéi'rin;,§ for t.he }_)&11'U(?.'.3 in such arbiiitai '«p1-<><:($cr'ii-£_ij}gs ""1-<.e;i<*iiii1g_: &1SiI'(,)I'i(Jl]]i(3EE] l'i§_g1.:res and, of Couiise, ra.t'h*er"H11":e'----.g~(5n.s11ming. as inevilabiy aii arbitral ,p.l.'OC€€C11iI1gSv 1'e':=su]t:i11g in awards, imrolving 'Sigf1'ifiCé1'nt Eéuin'-so 01' an1(._)uniis. ,<__;o 1.hE'(')i..I.£;'i'I the ]..)r()<.'ess of ania.ppe1iecat.ioz1" u"1*1c:it-tr Section 34 of' the Act for s<=-1.ii:':g aside the awarii at the instance of the party who is .._f}5u1H(i€no€d with the awarci, 2'1 l"m'I.le1er appeal to the high Section 37 of the Act and thouggl'1 not ofpifovidied under ihe ve1'y A('I« as eiiabled 11n(!e.:' (Mg/--. 33 Constitution of l1'1dia.. 21 l'1.i1"1.l'ici' Hpt'('iE1.l lcax.-'6? 1.)vIiIio11 to the Supreme Court. more often i'l'1an not. i1'ivol\-'i1'i§___>,' technical quesi,ion.s. cli<'it"i11g not oziiv gra1'1t' of _l.a-n-:;_.1\'l('*" 'i;.ij'i'*i(;l getting elevated to the st;-iius of 21 l"L£I"l:'l,fi.("bI_' app'eé1'l",'*--lj1it_";aIvs<') warranting declzi-irzitimi of law liv the1"Sti}.3i'{.:i_ii'i=-'_l'('"o1.rl'i'*i...l7.i lie which may a guide for tile Eli1-t.iie'i*~..pro(:?ct*dirigs' ..;1ii«{j_i'<.'-ir.! enactment.

30. The net resiili. i.i1a__iV_ ."l"l.'i("Vl_;.}1"il)il"l'%1llillji. 'lp1"('H.'("t'<,.lll[Q8 ending up more;'' V-191 l.l:"i'c11'lll1()ll'l3{'li"i'}'(?'~NSUHSUI-nnlg and longer tllarz"t:he_.l1':121Inll%:3:'v'.w:..».i..i'ld l'ié1i'v:::-'é5){'rierwise ('():1;~;i.n11ecl. before thel"'ciVil ci:r)_1lirl"f.~.=si.:.l 'iI'3,;:isa._liu__1r(:lened the liiigeim with higher eXpendit--Lu'e '(ind i~'i.as..>n()i spared the C(}l.lI'lS ('.l{.l1€l' :_a"nd_ th_e'l"¢.p;a_ora<7lox iii-éi:=-i«;,«;'«"arbii.1'e1{'ion [')§'(,)('t,'t'.'Cll1"I§'_{'.'-5, lirciiig inI'or1nei1"dis--piitVei' 1f€£%.()lL1'[oi()I1 mode. t'|"1(_:)ugl'1[ of as Li l')r)(J1"} to l 5....vthe he2iifily_biJ:§%dei1e'cl formal litigation system ti'n'<__mgh

-. ffarsourts beiiigi'1;elic1vc:=*(:l ofa(ldii'i(_>1'12=il Sl.Ill.S and 'c1}')p(.'&-ll$~'._ but lfllonll'-tl1e_g_other hand 112.15 only <-c)m'1'il)i.ii'ed further to tlie docket explosion and has failcci in 2111 the three E'r('n'iis of lii«.._h"pr~oviding i.nfo1'm2:1.l remedial fomm, provicling ii"icxpeiisivo V 34 resolution and settlement of the dispute and for p1"o\s'idi-ng expeditious forum for 1-esolvi1'1g the clisputies. V

31. Even within the short, span of about 13 we find litigation prolii'erat:ing underrilliie:i§1'o\risici.>'iis:

Act and the trend does not shmiz eiriy a1hlei'.iii.1v'g.l' on the other hand may only inc1'eéii's3.el'lin t.}1e"da_§r's-- to <Eo:'1'1e.

32. A phenomenon of t'hi4s'ln'attz__1fe= &lvea\'zesA,Vo'ne to wonder as to the wisdom of h_avi;_171g fiinfixofs.V_hke",iihis and even understanding _s[1'1itlvV ;1g:z-.¢-:c~n1cen__ts, _\«\_;'l'1ether the law slmuld intervene to 'p._roviide'v..fo3=A'an"'z1i}'enue to the existing formal litigati0r1jlS'yst.eni i~:'1V_tl'1is e()L.111i:r_v z.ind io furtl'ie1' iI1\«"()l\-"C. Courts."lwhicdhdare alieady burdened with s\...1I"I'i(':iL?I1t nurf1ber__oflVCése_s;..,;which originate within the legal systeni srriid which find it difficult' to cope with. A331" 'Welfare left to wonder as to the wisdom of having a "el'legisl;ition of this type. to reg1.1lai_e arbiiral proeec-;:<lmgs and if we are to have a say in the matter, we would rzaither W 35 suggest arbitral proceedings being given a total go-lay or at least to give a gohy to the extent. by statutory recognition of the p1*oceedings by law and pave further litigation in Courts. Though this is :_. ' for the courts to p1*o11ounce upon.

is for the appropriate forum viz.. tlie note of these developments. ourvet'-:3.lL1atii»iI't c~t"ti"i,:e' }.i.f:t:;--if,lgiii3g of this law up to date is in pteseiit appeal and to act in the and hapless litigant and in the i'1_ite_rest:'o'i"oiir d

34. We betentio reeapitulate the hist,o13/ of this Iajwtahdtarioticie..vt'l'ie'-detteiopiiieiits up to the date for '~reaso'n3--."tha't.._Weitfiyﬁddtithe arbitratioli Proc.:eecling.~.s are norms. but not amenable to rhyme reasoh.

~ nTjhe "in__a'nner in which the learned judge of the trial dealt with the grourids L,1rged in support of the 'appl_i_Cation for setting aside the award and the manner in

-V 36 which the argttments aclcl1'esse(l at the bar on l.)rcl'1z-.1ll' of the applicant ha\-'c-r lD(".'t.'i1 dealt. witll. leaves 1'nu('l1 31,1.) desired. Unfortunately, the le.a1'n(-'(E jxaclge oi .3.;l._1t'll't'.'..'.'.l\"q,ttl:l court appears to have l)e<-:11 s\.>vaye;;-d _Jl').y,_t_E'1e _-1'(:l(4;"1'* -.!'_f:.:alt'* a"1:1 arbitral award is gospel 1ll'1,ll'.l'l. most', sa1-1(r1t'ii'i~ed,l":3_2.1'c~~gL3(:E lzif not to be disturbed.

36. The observation in ,;jVa.1_*a1--1..5'mt)t's.t".heV:)_1'de1' ljassc-:(.i by the learned judge of the t.1'ialVet')'1j:lb1":i g.p,_ilC)i'.ed '_;_.1l')(.>\.'(-'. only demonstrates gmilstimdc-£1--st_a;§di11g of the statutory pV1'oViseiofhs Elf;/J'the._ll'ear1'1ed'judge. If the logic and the re2.1soI1i--1"1g l'Ot.ti't:(l._il'T l 5 {See para 20 al5<'>'\'e] is to be acc_ept,ed, ls '11Otl1l'J1§_-__5;Sl1(,)l'l of givjalg a g(')--l:)3r" to I'1i'1t' 1-ijfldvisidns €>'f=Se<:tion the Act.

V37. "ltis 01' the (.IOLl.l'l' to 2:11:y}'Jl)' the law its 11. is "=..._m'ade and hot to either avoid or evacle in applying the r_eE~eVar1t'<--..law. Se.ction 34 of the AH" as ctzziptimlecl. ihdicagetes and enables an applictattimt being made to a l"w,CQ'urt. for t'-3et"ti11g_{ aside lllt' arlaitral z.m="(11'(l in ('.d.'.-st' £l"1(-' 37 situation as is indicated in sub--sectior1s (2) and [3] of Section 34 of the Act are madeout.

38. For our present purpose. as the a1'gii11'1'eji't.s'~».v advanced on behalf of the appe1lar1t«emp10yer revolving around the provisions c_1>i7~. .si1b--_'Cleii1"see:v--»é\r" of clause-a to sub--section (2) of Section vfijz, _.V

34. Application for award.- ' xxx {2} An arbitral award_r_'ma34;.§'i"be by the Courtonly _ ' " ..

ihe_-3barty'.:h1ak--i:ig the appl1'ca1'.z'on " ._ _farnis pr'oQj:..tfia t~ ~ -- ~ --

fiu} i'Ifi"ie'varbiIra.l award deals wirfi a dispute not Corltemplaied by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration. or it contains decisions on matter beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration: ' Provided that. if the decisions or 1 n1aI.'I.ers subrnitted to arbitration ('_'(.m be separated from those not 38 so subn'n'I.tc?d. only 1h_c.1t part. Q/"

the arbt'lr(.1I (:u.Ua.rc1' u.rI'ti<'i"z (.'c):'1£cu'r'1.s" c:lec'isz'.or1_~s on r71c1£:Ier.~;~_"' ._ not submiiied to ar'bi1r'czIz'(,m--._'v rnay be sel (.1.5f<:1e:

and sub--C1aL.1:5e--ii of (:lz'aL1.~se~P;) of511l:)w-:§:=(;1'im1¢_{2} (-j)'§'.S{,":Y.li§..}£"i'V 34 of the Act, reading:

U3} the Coz.u'1_f'in(is {it} {he arbi£r'alV_q.'i.u.a:'£l_V z'av--'z"*<.:'o':';:V.]"j¢fr.'.c'-V': H,'-IUI the pulcwiic; 'pol icy ('3/"1:'1d_ia.' Exp.1'a:1gf£o-:71.¥¥v«Wi_ihoLL'{" _p;*e;fudice to the generality Qf fsLz.b¥ciqi1~s_e«_ ('ii'). it is hereby d€ClaJ,'("Ci'--v1._]:O{T th'e::,-cmorfa'cz:Ice "c':;;,'3~r;.1i'zgj doubt. mm an a:_:.par'ci_f_<%'5i:«Iz (.':'(}:f}/V/Zl'.(3"vl'"I::}V{iI"{ the pz.ubhcf policy Q! India the I'2'1_cik.f:r":§;% Q/" l3l'.l'£"' {1l.1'(,U'(f1 was inclu.cec.l of affected _bg_}=_./'raVL :Ci_'O3"(sbrruplion or was; in violation Qf7.Vsec'tior.11. 25 oz9sec?I.aion 81. W(':~..,5ha11'5"C(?1iﬂI3C lﬁéé'Ve---;2.:'1'1'1inai'_i()11 02' {he ITl€}'H4S of the appéael C1fl1Vy' O'1'"£.V_ {$1.8 l.oL:(:hst()n(? of these st.a1"L.:t()ry ' provisiogié a113d"a§$'f.o wh:;:l:!'1c?r the lc:ar:e':_ed judge of the trial

--4.3_f€3O_1J1?,t has"_if; fact crxamimrcl 1:119 app£i<:e1t.ion on the t01iChs.tQﬁA.:% of 'i:l'1c=.sc stai,1.:I'.0ry plvvisirms. 39, H 1'\/Iost unforl L1n211'eE_x--«'. xve E'i;_'1(.t1 1'.]'1'(-H Ehe iezmwttl ~j1..1(.ige "of the trial courf, who has [Tamed the foliowing iSSLl('?S1 a/ 39

1. Whether ;.)Ic.u'r1I.'g'[/3; prove (my one of (fie? _ grounds menziozacd under Se(::.34 of zfieﬂu _ Arbilraiion and C(.:mciIic1{.ion AC1. 1996 lo'.

sets aside (he CLlUa!'d? i

2. V1/heI2'I,er ;3I(:1.i:1{.;fj_)'s c.1re? c?nI'itI(-.>d the rf(r{ii=;.,i:":(~z.,-{ ibraéier? '

3. 1/Vhaf or decree'?

has answemd t.l.1e-.= issimsV{igaii1'1s«{.V'iiiioi:o|'g_zV!yiV1'1;.ig:)rim;-Qo1'1"ii3loyer and in favour of Vz*c":s~;1)or1_<"iV(_',v'r"i1_vfo£§\§'iii-gisitlogxl/;.i\\'.;iIj'.a1 on the touchstone of the;_"si'éit:ii1Vtor:y above but on his own and {-1 ' E()i,dl misunderstoiioiiiigiiof _';goi'ct1?1'}.ii"1g the s1a1.:'11.l.<'.>1'_v provisions.

Th-'€':"¢1€E1Li'11¢d 'i1.,1Ei;g<.>....cii the triai court is also ('z11'ried away too'n_1U--VC h .b}{'L>:e1se laws, as had developed uricier the '-,,1V94O .A(.:"'t'.M 'X/'H'<;'f:iT|_'3/'*::iI'()l1i('E1lly. um' Iioticc: that one of 'l'.l"l(1 _ if:g1jou_y1'1ds verystixiiigiy urged by iilic-r appelianivcmploym'. in 4¥._vVVi.i<1_isC¢aseas urg(:'(.1 by Sri Zulfikar. It'E'1.i'l1t:'d (',()1.I1I.'>'{'1 for me Tappellaint is that i.i'u:- zirbilral awa1_1*(i is 21 non--spc:;;.1.ki1'1;_{ notwithsmriding" i:i'1e st.:g.m.11.ory l'Cq1.liI'(")I]1(".r'11 ihnt it V should have been a reasoned ewvz,-11'd in terms 01' the provisions of Section 31 of the Act. iis the 21gI"(:'.L"'I3i€i-1ﬁ'._.E' between the parties had not 1'c>}ic~_T\..-I-»ci the 211'bii:*z:.1i.o:' ;ai7._:ii'1i"

obligation to spell out reasons f(.)l:" "{',vi1"€1'.g1\1{Zi1jd.VV"'&:'5'_&;V required under Sub-S€'.('i'.i0I] (3) of S.§;eti(>11 31.. oi"'i:h_i_:= Azﬁ

41. _ A speaking aweird aiaii eo1'1i;=:i1'1s reasons to support [nori:indi(':z-11.0 the basis for such :1;s";1]€?('('HSil_211't_7d ii"

the parii_y xviaen the parties areifat question. As we notice. the _\?\!x(v""l'_i.'.!'V in rcs;_:)ect' oi" four hills o4u.t 0f Si}; presented by the C()1'11'1'£.~1(.'tOI' totheVeInVpioyer'i.._e:vbili Nos 3. 4. 5 and Even 11(.'I'(-'.. the Sixth billviras in 1'espect of any work done or exc~<*:.1t.ed i:=...by"tVhe c<:>"ri1i1'ta§:to1* but on idle biii i:.owards iC11i1'}§;{ of men. '1."InaeI'1inei*3rA and wast age of in ai;e1'ia!s. 42;" ~~-It is not even 21. claim, which is enabled in 'i'avm,11' of "-._th'é contractor to be ]'.)m i'o:'i:h as :1 <riai1'1': in i:e:'rns oi the §/ 4.1 agreement between the parties. We had ()(§('E1Si'*):l::}' examine such obnoxious (,',()ll('('])l of idling towards idling of men, n1e1<.:l1i11(:ry'""ar1d (lf; materials by a contractor, who has lop'l21[txmr_'),l'§§ another matter before us, pa1't'ieL:..la'1?ly the .gtl:;ii.rn%_:l)Vl:/,lvV1'i}§"'in the nature of da'.11nages. \r\/'hAjie ;"AA!<v*2-i§1'1'}e(l counsel for the C()11t":'aet_(')r that the agreement does 1']O1;.',(?.I"1t1bl(f or §i9<)(_~.$"1iy:w-i_.u law.» 2.1 <-lemse to enable the towamls idl1'r1g of men. materials. would neVertheles!§'--See.k to by C()1'1t{'I]('liI'}_§_{ that it is nothing the nature of damages Silétained l.<)sse:5""1'1'a'c:u1*retl by lhe contractor due to nor'i«r_cu;iepaloynj'ent ~:,)_f_j.. the .resources of the Co1'm"aetor '"~'r*esultinga in,- "4f..~ioss to the (:'ont'ract'<'>r due to non-

" r-Tutizilization/"under ut.ili7.;-xtion of his l't')S()t1l'('('S. Hzulfikar, learned coun:.=_;el for the a.ppeli;.mt'.-- Aerriployer has st:'z)1'}gly relied upo1'1_ the _judgment' of the :VfSupreme 'Court in the case of DDA vs SHARMA 82. CO V 42 [(2008) 13 SCC 80] to Conteiid that an &1\-\-"2.1l'(f'l Iii':-.l»,j germane to the terms of the contract Erietweeri {ht-' an award travelling beyond the terms of it an award beyond the scope of %1-e1"¢+1-e;;-ﬁt;is j-tllie and an award which is not a V:4spe;71_lti':';_§é*--awarr13§/ situations to vitiate the award in of of subsection. (2) of Se(rti'o':n'*:i.f54 B~\lv'H(_llLlIl\\.»'I'1'1L£'-3 attention to para~l__7 of iwhertéisi the Supreme Court its rulii':g in earlier case ORISSA LTD vs ~.S__CI-IOL [(2000) 9 SCC 552 and also in CIVIL ERECTORS (P) vs" [t1 1l:St3C 75, it can be held that an :.r.1i.ad.r-: beyond the terrns of the 21gI'("{_'l'1ltT1'll betweeri--.tthe'V ge1'.t':i1'1;;{ Vrit/iE{1tV(4'(§! I"l()[\-Vll,hSl.£'llidll"IQ the justification "'f.or"'a claim of that iiattire. was also 1'eit<-*1'at.ed

---in thins 'decision by the Supreme Court with re,fe1'en<'rc~. to 'A'-4lf~._its«lfear'lierldecision in the ease of ASSOCIATED ENGG. CO "GOVT or AP {(1991) 4 sec 93] and an amm-1 also 43 getting Vitialed if it is c'(.')m.1'a1'y in law 01' the lzmd <.>11 §.'a»,I'_1;_{;.__ other statutory provisions, reaffirmed by l'E'.lA€?.1?l_.(-:?..!'l1'("'§>_'V:-$.(}' :_. !\ its earlier Cl€('.lSl()!'1 n)1"1(lt'1'ed L.:1"1dc1' lljlgé 194.0';++;:.~lf_u&b:;i"l 1113 case of N CHELLAPPAN vs KERALA-._SEB {:1 9.75)} 'SE39

289.

44. The s(rop(--? of em t_1:(- :'nz.m:"1c:'1' of rendering' awards . wl"1i(:1j1 \ v_ €;<e'1 m i 11 a U0 n before the lééill'lic%r ctzlssef in [(2002) 4 SCC 45] lglnq. \.vcrc-2 all extc1'1:'sively examined by 'flakSv;.1.j5'1*g;%.li51'll§-r* in I'E":i5 ('ase z1:"1(E if was opined "L1 :mirjt';er__ w'lf;i<:l'1 c2.1m1ot; be made mxbjecl II1l'E!.1_VZ'EC.I:'Vl'OfVEi. (Ili.sp}i'i;Et__ bef01'e an a:'l:)it1'a1.01* in t:m'1'11::s of rhc' c0ntraCt"'be1:weér1 :9-'cI*1e: pa1'I_ic.s cm": ncvcrr be 1'n;ad(' ms 21 " ._Ab4ai=.iVs of th{sla.wé11'd and the awe-11*cl if so is liable to l,)<3 set' ivI1 'Eﬁf1'l"l}S of the pmvisions 01' S<:c_*h'o1'1 34 of t:i':c'-r Act. wéts' emphat:.ical1y rei1.erz-1t.crd. M 45 circumstances. Any order without involving this exercise'--«_V"'--.,j and falling short of this requirement, suffers of being a non-speaking order.

47. The irony here is that white -eyenV''a,\_yards :

arbitrators who are all in..forma1 'authorities, are found fault With, on the "touchstcsne order failing to pass the test of a reasonedotfder or a award. a judge trained in if is found' to be shorjtwof " reguirements, there is obviously 'wrong in the training system of theajiudgeis courts. The basic requvirexneinti a is, it should indicate the reasons for the judgment after a brief narration ,_Vof thefacts recording the ﬁndings on the basis the evidencejolaced before the court and reﬂected in '._'_'Vth_ei~:a3'gui1i_ents. If the order or judgment of a court does V' contain these basic ingredients, the judgment/order on the touchstone of the order/judgment being not consonance with a reasoned order or a speaking 46 judgment. The order under appeal in this case from this very vice.

48. One another ground urged by counsel for the appellant-ernp1oy'er___ is tha_.t" the e.

opposed to the public policy of aridilfgthis argument is sought to be basis of the ratio as laid down by. the l/the Case of ONGC LTD though had a checke_r_ed_ ups and downs, it blossorned : of no less than the revolutionary A of Appeal in England, the of Rolls, who has eloquently exp1aine'dlthis~ﬁph"rase m the case of ENDERBY TOWN crﬁtizgatirn vs FOOTBALL ASSN LTD [1971 _ . has observed as under:

a good man in the saddle, the unruly _' horse can be kept in control y" it can jump over ' obstacles. Had the timorous always held the it field not only the doctrine of public policy but even the common law or the principles of equity would never have evolved. Sir William 47 Holdsworth in his History of English Law Vol III p. 55, has said: I .

'In fact, a body of law like the common law, which has grown up gradually with the growth of't.'t1e2_ ~' nation, necessarily acquires some ~ ﬁxed principles, j ityisv. to I' maintain these princ1'ple_s=.it must able, on the ground of public policy --

or some other, like _..ground, to"-

suppress practices which, » under ever new disguises, . se'e.k}t¢) weaken, ornegative V ' It is thus clear }that. pririciples govemirig public policy begrzrid capable, on proper occasiong, of eJcpan_sion" org. modification. Practices" wh:ich"?1:were, "--considered perfectly rtomlal at one...,_ 'h_ave.' today become obnoxious' and _oppressive_ﬁ;- public conscience. If there of'p.uE2lic policy which covers a case, tl1en~.tlie.caurt._n1i1st in consonance with V publicconsciénce and in keeping with public 'I V' good'~and public interest declare such practice . ,fI0v,be opposed. to public policy. Above all, in __oiec_icling._any.,_c'c;se which may not be covered 'by' courts have before them the beacon V. . light of the Preamble to the

-- Constitution. Lacking precedent, the court can 'be guided by that light and the principles underlying the Fundamental Rights

- T ' Directive Principles enshrined in our

-- Constitution.

I m'Cur Supreme Court has followed suit and has ihsapplied these principles to resolve disputes arising out of V 50

51. It is on sueh lqgiazi f()1..:1'1d2-11"i(a1:. Sri ZL:lfil{¢'1:'.

Counsel for the alapeimm. wmaltfl :_.11*ge Illzjii. made by the arbitrator in respect (,)f:'('?>§Ai':1ilT'. idhng of men, machinery and \ve1§t' n totally outsicte the scope of the parties and a term not »xri'1'.!.1t:1 txiite 'a.;;.vt{');ﬁt'L3:e:f1_1'plattéimi the parties and therefore the awardAgsétgsst'iii'i.a_tefi;.s:t,k::.

52. Countering" Né;1t,z11';1_;'. }("'E.1I'l](€(.E counsel for the Contencl that the scope an under Sec:t_i():'1 37 of the Act is s("();.)e of an e'1ppEi:._';:1'.i(n'1 Ltneier Seetiyon £52? in itself" being quite newmw, restr:iCLed_ an(i,1.hat. application having been dis.ne1isse(eE by the Civil'-,co1'J1'i:";-..unless the appeilam'. has n1arEc' out: a. Vwstrorlg gfébqﬁyd to} interfe1'°ence, the appeal also should be ; -.t1is:rnisnsed.A end the award leﬁ 'undis1.ur1:')ed. for Z 2 V' ' t t -.i_rI11§')'leA;ti§1e'n'tat.ion. 54 _ '73 of the Contract Act and if the arbitrator has passed award, though not by" expressing his intention to damages to the contractor towards losses A him, but by simply indicating tihat»--.the'_r sustainable at least to the extent of 50%' 73 action should be sustained on 73 of the Contract Act, submits -11;. should be disturbed by this court.

56. It is also the are urged before this court by 1 'counsel for the appellant-ern_plo:yer grounds found to have been taken in app]i_cVation:5under Section 34 of the Act before court"'a.v1d..therefore, submits that it is not open to supplement such grounds which ' it were the civil court. in this appeal under Section 3'?" of:. the Act and seeks for a decision from this the touchstone of only such grounds which had urged before the civil court.

a/ 55 h 57. By placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of son: mrr BUILDERS LTD {us srarr: or KERALA [(2009) 10 scc 2591, Sri "

learned counsel for the respondent-contractor;_' if 5 that assuming for argument's sake ..

award is not sustainable for the_4reason:f'tl1at speaking award or a reasoned not end by merely setting' but matter should be remandedto court, as the case may be," question and therefore, can be sustained to the extent the the award can be found int;rir1sically';' sense. even without any dispute fbetweerif partipes such as in the true order of the as any other part of the award made the arbitrator which is not supported by any such 'material is concerned and is therefore found to in reasons to sustain the same. only to that eaentf the award may be set aside and the matter be V 56 remanded to the arbitrator or the civil court, as the case may be, for reexamination of that aspect alone.

58. On a perusal of the judgment of the it in the case of SOM DUTT BUH.DERS:'LATl)" 7.1;

that the Supreme Court on V setting aside the arbitral ~:the_'vice" a non~speaking award, acceded of the learned counsel vfor' for a limited remand. while setting aside the theektent of enabling the arbitrator for the award, which award had so that the sustainability of. the can be tested afresh "on the touchstone "such"--_.reasons to be supplemented by the Q arbitrator whether they were germane to the .._lil'_jpassing of" award or if it was found wanting on the V..Vtouchstonc of the provisions of sub~c1ause----iii of sub- . (2) of Section 34 of the Act and other related 'statutory provisions under the Act.

V 57

59. While these exercises can be folioweci ioy this <'o--i'.--.rft' also, even ifthe pl"0('€C1UI"t? adopted by the S1,ipi'(».~ing~__'Ciot_:;f'i; may not Per Se 21m.ount to 21 law Ci(:(.'l21i"e.d i'I"i""'5.§'l'iﬁ'5'€ t'(>?"

Article 141 of the C.'.<)i.1si:iI_L1tioi1 of Imiia, hive;..vcai'1-i1a.1{a_f~--_i:oi'.e of the statutory provisions of stib-_sec?tnio1j1"{4~] ()f7S'f:.'(':1'.i'()i} of the Act, as ex1:1'ac1:ecE above. ai"ie»:,i_'"c;'.:-.-ii} LIVi'If31€'?.ul'b"»i':£1i'1:(T:E that the opportunity coni',emplat'ed in is-.1}i'i:.s .oi'--..g.Lib~~sct<"i.ion (4) of Section 34 of the Act o-I"~.a"~p;e.rVson who is interested in Si,1S1I3.'ev1iI"i':';:_iT1'&'-'..§ an aig.rai*d."i4I1(** Vein-idity oi' wiiich is questioned ul1i,3.§f'l"::_...V1E'("f{.itI'i'i«_34' ._o".i"'t'I':i"1{>; Q'-\('t. it. is only-i= to enable thei;{:1l'bi.t1;3iZQIT.__(i"i3',11€<If'V.i:{)' (-'().i]('i.L1C1€ the ii'im:1criiisive proceedings or to 'e--1iii:iVin'.rat"e--._ the possible di-awl')ac'k or defect in4;jthes..awa1*"cL that the award escapes the vice of Vlsiubvfisectionls?[2):4and [3] of Section 34- of ihe Act. 'In tl1e.pf.c'seni case. it cannot: be said that' the ~.t..1':proC.eedingsV_«3bef01"e tile ;r.I'i:)i'£'i'z=1i.<)i' \-\-"('I'C_' iI1('()i1('i{_.lSi\r't'.. 'E«o.VveV"E'a1",_f.-'iii so far as iihe allowing of the claim by (lie arbitrator to the ext:en'1'. inciicaied in the award as 2-:;___;'z.1ii"1st' "bill Nos 3. 4, 5 and 6 are (tom'ei":ieci. \.w are oi" me view 58 that taking clue from the provisions of sub--section (4) of Section 34 of the Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of SOM DATT BUILDERS LTD 4' H the award in so far as it relates to the claims " 1 Nos 3, 4 and 5 while are required to aside-I be remanded to the arbitrator _only4"----to"..the it indicating or to give supportive fora award to the extent as already arbitrator; the award insofar asit relatesyito bill No 6 is concerned, idling charges towards and wastage of material in the nature of a claim towardsgydariiageis, of opinion that the contract vgoirerned the entire relationship when once the terms between the parties are reduced into writing in terms of the contract, '«.:gti1e~gre'1ationship betweenthe parties cannot be expanded the realm of the contract, assuming for ' argurnent's sake that there are other enabling statutory 59 provisions to sustain 21 claim of t:1'1z_-11' nature, t.11on;_;l"i it x_\._'._21s not within the c:o:'1i.em1.)1aiion of the pzirtios.

61. We are of the cfleziix' opinion that passed by the a1'bitm1'or may bt' t'(_>ii:::'i(i f expose itself to the vice of f'211l_ii'1gg"i'Tr:)_i.il on.1_:'h"e Vreqni of Section 34 of the Act. and "s'e.t: the Converse v1'z., a siia1tt.itoi:t" _1;i1fc)?gfisioiﬂ.:i11__ ziiiy other enactment being' L:z1{3.N)1e: on the parties making 4..g§£)od;j'i'tt,.}1i«2. app}i(:ai--.3i1*i1.y of that Si';-'1i'zii.'<'ii'_y provision, .eannot; be¢f:.:mil'i~egi----. in "'2:1i«s!"tr) suppienimii the terms betweezi the_pa€:i"ti.ie§s__é1'ndto in(;:or_porate t.l'1;':-it as an additional termkoi"the",(i:oI'11'fi'2iei, while examining E5-1 ('Iaim :_in'~...the .f1_iat:_.1_1fe .__of e1"'(:1--a--iin towards idling of men and mac_hine'1'}I"e".yVeIstage of materiai etc:., in an appeal °'-~4I<1I'ising otlt. p1'()(rC('C1iz'1g w1'1ei'ei:'1 also the ('U111!'E'€.("i.(')l'

-. ."j:.r.:."--.1r'i.., come" _before court i1":si:eaci of goirig be.fon_: the by p1.1tt'i::ig',{ "forth 21 ('.Ia.im in the Iiatiire of "edaxnvages, though the ])E'()(T('("(iilEgS in the iristaiil wise did T7-._"o-riginate before the 'c11'bit_1*_a1.()1: in law and on Icégal §/ 4 60 principles it does not make any difference and the principles are equally applicable to the _ arising out of the arbitration proceedings also. fir i

62. It is to be noticed that when determined. the claim by the cont:ractor..

have executed the work dlhavey///Nft it midway. can only be by else.

We caxmot help but:t;o~_- practice that has developed" proceedmgs with the contractors' " All inﬂated, dubious claims 'them if not to the entire extent _:to ldeictent: a fact which can be ;io'ticed preserit case also is proof of this as the claim towards idling of men and wastage of material is concerned and foundtdion record that the employer terminated the terms of its communication dated 3-9-2001. whereafter there was no business on the part of the Vdscontractor to keep his men and machinery tied down to év/l 61 the work site. The arbitrator in his wisdom and rich experience having visited the work spot . 2002. opines that he has found a good it idling there and machinery parkedizltherep calling in aid his experience makes the claim and has allowed a towards idling of men wastage of material! .. V

63. In our a claim not examined raised after the detemiilnatianplof was no claim in the eye of law and just puts forth any and every and contemplate disputed matter arbitrator. it does not compel this court" have gone through the process of arbitration Z proceedings and an application for setting 4:' the award, to shut a blind eye to the development of to make a mechanical remand of this matter M 62 also to the arbitrator for making an award even in respect of the claim under Bill No 6.

64. We find that assuming the arbitrator lg' i award in respect of such a claim it pig unsustainable on the touchstone of section (2) of Section 34 of as the realm of the Arbitral we deem it as an idle exercise to arbitrator to supplement the: award on the claim against thfeview that there is nothing it entitlemeiit in law which could enable the award in favour of the contractor' " on it and applying the legal the decision enunciated by the case of ONGC LTD [supra] and as been" indicated by this court in respect of claims dainages in a similar case decided by this court 7'at_Toa.i15'+eé2o01 in RFA No 1051 of 2003 c/W RFA 1076 of claim was not one sustainable in law and M 63 therefore We do not ﬁnd any need or justif1cation.p""to remand this claim also to the arbitrator to "

reasons to sustain this part of the award but it _ award on this aspect by applying y_ 34 ofthe Act. 1 t it V M iv 'A

65. In the result, this appeal the arbitrator is set aside and "far asit relates to the claim againstpbill Nos A-4 the arbitrator is called reasons. To that extent of or otherwise of the award, be.' supplemented by the arbitrator, to the court-below for reexamination under Section 34 of the inflict'; thletrevasons are supplemented by the arbitrator. to .thist::e2(tent, the matter is remanded to the :ciyil..,court" the purpose of examining the question of or otherwise of the award of the arbitrator ' as it relates to the claims against bill Nos 3. 4 "and 5 and after the court is enabled by the arbitrator by §/ 64 placing or supplementing reasons for making the award against these claims. For such purpose, the matter is remanded to the court--beIow. In respect of all aspects, the award is set aside. Parties to this ~ appear before the civil court on 07._O9.._201f1)"iforhtaikirigg further instructions. The civil court topensiure W with this judgment. The civilh to ,e11s.ure "a reasoning to supplement the awa-rd"_is"'received.,fmri'1 the arbitrator at the earliest not months from that date. __It-.i:s-- to apprise the arbitrator of this regard.

67. Having regardiwtoaéthe success, the parties to bear their respective--..co_sts..

.,(}eriera1 to ensure copies of this judgment 1 Secretary to the V Vdfiovernment, Ministry of Law and Justice. Government of India, Shastri Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi----- 110 001, §/

10.

11.

12. T A. , lnfrastructiu re 66 The Chief Secretary.

Government of Karnalaka.

Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore --

560 001.

The President. Federation of Karnataka Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Po_s.1.... _--

K G Road, Box No. 9996.

Bangalore -- 560 009, The Secretary, ofi"

S()L']'1a*c.i¢_ll1a/._ Labour, Vidhana Bangalore -- 560 001, The Secretaiy, lllVIiinist.:yl'l'»l«:' Public Wo1'ks excluding" a .Por_ts and " Inl'a.nCl Water The "Sec1'efaljy., ll" _lVi*i._Ij1is__t1y of Transport =Dep'a1jt"Inef1i't. and Food *-Civil gS.{.1p'pliies and Consumer» AI'i'ai1's' Department.

._':gViclhVanva Soud!.1..a;' Bangalore -- 560 :-[The :'\S_eac'.re'f'ary, Ministry of A V Tourigsin iroin Kannada "€1ul--ture';"

an ad In formaliion and Department and Development Deparfnieiit, Vldhana Soudha.

ToL1I'i.sm ll Bangalore -- 560 O0].

'i_l'l'E1\:.fif,;» :+;1}().1':i', 1 :\}'icli_ia_11l'c'il V' "

SOUdl1EL Bangaliore-.5--«.__56O 'OO"1_i. ' ..D¢.lJart1ﬂ'~l':I1i'a."'v V T 33/

14.

15.

16. 67 The S<-3C1'0t.a1"v. I\/!i11is-:11'_\_.»' of Small Suiic I1'a<i11s1.r_\.r {"r0m Capital CZ & E' I_)c~.;:)a--11'trmrzn :'1m'i Se1'ict.1ifurc i':.*<_)n'1 C2 ti' 1 Departm<:"cm.. \x'£c1hana S011(£3"121.. Bangalore -- 5f3('J OO 1.

The Large industries I\/Ii:'1is11'_\_/ St,' ':1 E Sec1'c>t,z.:1 ry .

and Medium _ Bangalore -- 560 1.

from C' IA"

Departmem. Véd}"12:u'1a S('_)§fi>C}I*'££'1l. The Sec:1'6::.z.n'y. '[V:'I.1,"1§-SU'f}E':'» } <:.)iv' T Minor Irrigation f_rV_0"mV W519;-*~.. ' Resource ' .a1"1df' "i'~'§a1ji11i'Vka_g Bang211;)'2'é' 7 E~"'--;.(-T~,'--{7'_) O(3):_},___ Departmcfn1.A.'}:;Vir1 E11111 C<3<j>:.i"cl,.}j1;f-'t .' ' - Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court