Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The argument of the learned senior counsel may look attractive at the first instance, but on my deeper scrutiny I have find it without arty merit. While arguing this aspect of the case, I cannot brush aside the background under which the matter was referred to the arbitration. The contract was between the Board, which functions through its functionaries like Secretary, Additional Chief Engineer, Executive Engineer and so on. It was the Board who entered into an agreement No. 19 dated 7.12.1980 and also allotted the earth work and its transportation for filling along RD-1750 to RD-2800 to M/s S.P. Chopra & Co. Differences arose between the Board and the contractor and the matter was referred to the nominated arbitrator on behalf of the Board vide memo dated. 13.10.1983 through its Secretary, Legal Section in exercise of the powers vested in him vide Clause 25-A of the agreement. So, in this manner it can be safely concluded that the agreement was between the Board and the contractor. The matter was referred by the Board to the nominated arbitrator and the employees of the Board had been participating before the arbitrator on behalf of the Board and not in individual capacity. Virtually, the Board and the contractor were the parties to the arbitration proceedings. In that light, the award of the arbitrator has to be read. It may also be mentioned here that it was the Board who filed the counter-claim before the arbitrator. The Addi tional Chief Engineer or the Executive Engineer were not appearing before the arbitrator in their personal capacity as they had no dispute with the contractor. In this view of the matter, the arbitrator wanted to give the decision between the Board and the contractor and not against the employees in their individual capacity. If the arbitrator has not specifically mentioned that the Board was liable for the awarded amount, it is only a mere irregularity and not ah illegality as was sought to be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The arbitrator never wanted to fix the liability upon the Additional Chief Engineer or the Executive Engineer. At the most, it is an error in the award which can be corrected by the Court itself by virtue of the provisions of Section 15 of the Arbitration Act without remitting the award to the arbitration. In this regard learned counsel for the respondents relies upon Union of India and Anr. v. Himmatsingha Timber Ltd., A.I.R. 1964 Calcutta 91, where it was held as follows :-