Supreme Court of India
Dulal Poddar vs Executive Engineer, Dona Canal ... on 12 November, 2003
Equivalent citations: AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1049, 2004 (1) SCC 73, 2003 AIR SCW 6725, 2004 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 342, (2004) 14 ALLINDCAS 335 (SC), 2003 (7) SLT 333, (2004) 1 ALLMR 158 (SC), (2004) 1 JCR 97 (SC), 2004 (14) ALLINDCAS 335, 2004 (1) ARBI LR 24, 2004 (1) ALL MR 158, 2003 (9) SCALE 670, 2004 (1) BLJR 172, 2004 (3) SRJ 374, (2003) 3 MAD LJ 380, (2003) 12 INDLD 570, (2003) 3 MAD LW 773, (2004) 1 CIVLJ 7, (2004) 1 PAT LJR 69, (2004) 1 PUN LR 481, (2004) 1 ARBILR 24, (2003) 8 SUPREME 279, (2004) 1 RECCIVR 106, (2003) 9 SCALE 670, (2004) 1 JLJR 77, (2004) 1 CURCC 57, (2003) 12 ALLINDCAS 958 (MAD)
Author: S.B. Sinha
Bench: S.B. Sinha
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4269 of 2002 PETITIONER: DULAL PODDAR RESPONDENT: EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DONA CANAL DIVISION AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/11/2003 BENCH: V.N. KHARE CJ & S.B. SINHA JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT 2003 Supp(5) SCR 484 The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The appellant, who was a contractor, entered into an agreement with the respondents for carrying on construction of a canal. The agreement provided that in case of any dispute arising under the contract, the matter would be decided by an Arbitrator who would be the Superintending Engineer. Disputes and differences having been arisen between the parties, the Arbitration Agreement was invoked by the appellant pursuant whereto the respondent herein appointed the Superintending Engineer as the Arbitrator. The said Arbitrator passed an interim award. Inspite of several requests made by the appellant herein the Arbitrator did not consider his claims and pass a final award.
The appellant herein, thereafter filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in the Court of Subordinate judge 1, Bettiah. It appears that the said court without issuing a notice to the respondents appointed a retired Chief Engineer as an Arbitrator. When the respondents came to know about the appointment of the said Arbitrator, they filed a revision petition before the High Court challenging the appointment of the said Arbitrator as illegal. In the revision petition no order of stay however was passed and as a result of that the Arbitrator proceeded to make an ex-parte award. In the meantime, when the Civil Revision Petition came up for hearing before the High Court, it with view that since an award had already been made by the Arbitrator, it would be open to the respondents to challenge the appointment of the Arbitrator by means of an objection under Section 30 of the Act before the Civil Court. Accordingly, the respondent filed an objection before the Civil Court. The Civil Court reflected the said objection. The respondents, thereafter, preferred an appeal against the said order of the Civil Court before the High Court. The High Court allowed the said appeal and set aside the appointment of the Arbitrator as well as the award given by the Arbitrator. It is against the said judgment the Contractor is before us in appeal by means of special leave petition.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we are of the view that the view taken by the High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity. It is not disputed that no notice at all was sent to the respondent before appointing Arbitrator. It is also not disputed that the award given by the arbitrator was an ex-parte one. Furthermore. Such an award which have been made by the Arbitrator having been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent herein, was illegal and void. We therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal. Hence, it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
We, however, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case are of the opinion that the Civil Court may consider the desirability of appointing a new Arbitrator in terms of the provisions of the Act expeditiously as possible.