Skip to content


State of Orissa Vs. Harihar Palo - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectArbitration
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. Appeal No. 115 of 1979
Judge
Reported inAIR1981Ori141; 52(1981)CLT121
ActsArbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 8 and 30
AppellantState of Orissa
RespondentHarihar Palo
Appellant AdvocateIndrajit Roy, Standing Counsel
Respondent AdvocateR.K. Rath and ;N.C. Panigrahi, Advs.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases Referred(see Hindusthan Steel Ltd. v. P. Boner
Excerpt:
.....not liable to be set aside on the ground that either on facts or in law it is erroneous. to appreciate the claims and the evidence adduced before him, the arbitrator also inspected the spot and after considering the claims, counter-claims as well as the evidence he has made the award. 7. all the points raised by the learned standing counsel and strenuously urged fail......for disallowing the claims of the present appellant. he hasalso misconducted himself in allowing additional claims. all these contentions of the defendant were not accepted by the trial court. the trial court has accepted the award and has made it a rule of the court. this appeal is directed against that order.2. the learned standing counsel vehemently contended that the award suffers from misconduct of the arbitrator, inasmuch as the arbitrator has entertained additional claims and the award is not supported by reasonings and the arbitrator has not given his finding on each item of claim.3. it is well settled that if the parties constitute an arbitration as the sole and final judge of the disputes arising between them, they bind themselves as a rule to accept the award as final and.....
Judgment:

N.K. Das, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Jeypore refusing to set aside the award of the Arbitrator. The arbitration proceeding relates to the work 'Construction of H. L. Bridge over Chebali Nallah'. There was an agreement and in pursuance of that the disputes between the parties were referred to Shri B. Patnaik, Superintending Engineer, National Highway Circle, Sambalpur by the Chief Engineer (Roads & Buildings), Orissa. The reference was for arbitration on the disputes over the claims of the claimant. The claimant had claimed Rs. 2,41,095, but the arbitrator has passed the award for Rs. 1,29,940. The award was objected to on the ground that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself as he failed to discuss and give his decision on each item of claim and counter-claim and has not given specific reasons for disallowing the claims of the present appellant. He hasalso misconducted himself in allowing additional claims. All these contentions of the defendant were not accepted by the trial Court. The trial Court has accepted the award and has made it a Rule of the Court. This appeal is directed against that order.

2. The learned Standing Counsel vehemently contended that the award suffers from misconduct of the Arbitrator, inasmuch as the Arbitrator has entertained additional claims and the award is not supported by reasonings and the Arbitrator has not given his finding on each item of claim.

3. It is well settled that if the parties constitute an arbitration as the sole and final judge of the disputes arising between them, they bind themselves as a rule to accept the award as final and conclusive and the award is ordinarily not liable to be set aside on the ground that either on facts or in law it is erroneous. The Arbitrator is not bound to give reasons for the award. It is sufficient if he has taken into consideration the claims of both the parties and has given reasonable opportunities to them and then it cannot be said that there was misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator for not assigning reasons for his decision. (See State of Orissa v. U. N. Samantray, AIR 1979 Orissa 39).

4. If the entire dispute is referred to the Arbitrator, the award cannot be setaside in absence of an error of law apparent on the face of the record. If the agreement is not made a part of theaward, it cannot be set aside on that count (see Executive Engineer, Deburi Expressway Division, Kendrapara v. Hemalata Singh, (1980) 49 Cut LT 373 : (AIR 1980 Orissa 76).

5. In the instant case, by virtue of the terms of the agreement, all disputes relating to the construction undertaken by the respondent were to be referred to the Arbitrator. There is nothing on record to show that the reference was only on a limited scope. On the other hand, it appears that it was a general reference relating to the disputes arising between the parties in respect of the construction work undertaken by the respondent. Theaward itself shows that there were claims by the respondent and counter-claims were also raised by the State Government. All the claims and counter-claims have been taken into consideration by the Arbitrator. Additional claims were also made from out of the very same contract. No objection was raised by thepresent appellant before the Arbitrator for entertaining such additional claims If the reference is to arbitrate in the matter of claims arising out of the work on the terms and conditions set out in the agreement, it cannot be said that the action of the Arbitrator amounts to misconduct (see Hindusthan Steel Ltd. v. P. Boner, ILR (1973) Cut 1218). In the instant case also it is not contended that the additional claims relate to some other work, and not relating to the work undertaken by the respondent as per agreement. Undisputedly, the appellant also did not raise any objection before the Arbitrator for entertaining such claims. It is, therefore, not justified on the part of the appellant to turn back and state now that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself in entertaining such claims.

6. The fact that the claim of the respondent was for Rs. 2,41,095 and the Arbitrator has allowed only Rs. 1,29,940 itself shows that the Arbitrator after considering all the claims and counter-claims has made his award. It also appears from the award that evidence was adduced by both the parties and claims and counterclaims were placed before the Arbitrator. To appreciate the claims and the evidence adduced before him, the Arbitrator also inspected the spot and after considering the claims, counter-claims as well as the evidence he has made the award. In view of all these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator.

7. All the points raised by the learned Standing Counsel and strenuously urged fail. There is no intrinsic infirmity in the decision of the trial court and there are no compelling reasons to interfere with the finding of the trial Court.

8. In the result, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.


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