Skip to content


State Government of Orissa Vs. Raghunath Nayak - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectArbitration
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. Appeal No. 343 of 1982
Judge
Reported inAIR1984Ori120
ActsArbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 30
AppellantState Government of Orissa
RespondentRaghunath Nayak
Appellant AdvocateP.K. Mohanty, Addl. Standing Counsel
Respondent AdvocateM.M. Sahoo and ;S.K. Sanganeria, Advs.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section..........misra, j. 1. the state ciovernment has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned subordinate judge, bhubaneswar in o. s. no. 2 of 1982-i accepting the arbitrator's award and making it a rule of the court. 2. the respondent who is a contractor was entrusted with the work of 'improvement to earth dam of derjang irrigation project (providing graded filter)' by the appellant under agreement no. 42 f-2 of 1976-77. as disputes arose between the parties, the superintending engineer, western irrigation circle, bhawanipatna was appointed as arbitrator to decide the disputes according to clause 23 of the f-2 contract. after considering the claim of the respondent and the counter-claim of the appellant the learned arbitrator gave an award in favour of the respondent for a.....
Judgment:
ORDER

B.N. Misra, J.

1. The State Ciovernment has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar in O. S. No. 2 of 1982-I accepting the Arbitrator's award and making it a rule of the Court.

2. The respondent who is a Contractor was entrusted with the work of 'Improvement to Earth Dam of Derjang Irrigation Project (Providing graded Filter)' by the appellant under agreement No. 42 F-2 of 1976-77. As disputes arose between the parties, the Superintending Engineer, Western irrigation Circle, Bhawanipatna was appointed as Arbitrator to decide the disputes according to Clause 23 of the F-2 contract. After considering the claim of the respondent and the counter-claim of the appellant the learned Arbitrator gave an award in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 3,05,000/- including Rs. 6,600/- towards refund of security deposit along with future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of award to the dare of the decree or the date of payment whichever would be earlier. The appellant challenged the said award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act mainly on the grounds that a sum of Rs. 1,79,370/- granted by the learned Arbitrator in respect of item No. 7 was illegal as it was contrary to the agreement between the parties and that the award of interest by the learned Arbitrator was wholly without jurisdiction. The leaned Subordinate Judge decided both the points against the appellant.

3. In course of hearing of this appeal the very same points have been urged on behalf of the appellant. On going through the award I find that the Arbitrator has not given any reasons for his decision. Law is well settled that the Arbitrator is the sole judge of the facts and law involved in the case before him and his decision when not supported by reasons is not open for review by the Court. In the award there is no specific mention of item No. 7 and the sum claimed by the respondent under, that item and therefore it is not possible to go behind the award to ascertain the manner in which the learned Arbitrator has dealt with the said item. It is also worthy of note that the award, amount as fixed by the learned Arbitrator is less than the amount which was claimed by the respondent as due to him. Learned Additional Standing Counsel fairly conceded that there is no clause in the agreement between the parties prohibiting award of interest on the principal sum. As such both the objections raised by the appellant in this appeal must be rejected.

4. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the leaned Subordinate Judge in O. S. No. 2 of 1982-I are confirmed. There should be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //