Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajasthan State Road Develop. & Cont vs M/S Pooja Construction Company on 20 July, 2017
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1597 / 2017
Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corporation
Limited Having Registered Office At Jaipur Through Project
Director, Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction
Limited (R.S.R.D.C.C. Ltd.) 24-A Nagnechi Ji Scheme, Pawanpuri,
Bikaner.
----Appellant
Versus
M/s. Pooja Construction Company, Having Office At 1- C/19,
Jawahar Nagar, Shri Ganganagar.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Jain.
Mr. Darshan Jain.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 20/07/2017 This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the District Judge, Bikaner, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act') has been rejected.
The respondent-Contractor raised a dispute in relation to Agreement No.RE/BKN/95-96, dated 06.12.1995.
The award in question was delivered by the sole Arbitrator on 05.04.2006.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed application under Section 34 of the Act, the learned District Judge by the impugned order though the scope of provision of Section 34 of the Act is very limited, still dealt with each and every issue framed by the (2 of 2) [CMA-1597/2017] Arbitrator and came to the conclusion that the award did not require any interference and, consequently, rejected the application.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Arbitrator as well as the District Judge committed error in accepting the claim of the respondent and dismissing the application under Section 34 of the Act.
With reference to issue No.2, it was submitted that there was an Agreement between the parties that the Contractor will not charge for additional lead, however, the claim in this regard has been accepted.
A look at the issue raised by the Arbitrator, it is clear that the same did not pertain to additional lead, in fact the same was for the purpose of carriage of Kankar from the Bacchasar quarry and, therefore, subsequent contract by the Contractor that would not ask for additional lead had no implication.
None of the finding on other issues were questioned by the learned counsel for the appellant.
As already noticed, the District Judge has thoroughly considered the validity of the award, which findings cannot be said to be perverse so as to require any interference by this Court.
Consequently, there is no substance in the present appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI)J. PKS-94