Back
2003(6) Supreme 517
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Patna High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., S.B. Sinha, J.
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. -Appellant
versus
M/s. Annapurna Construction -Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 5647-48 of 1997
Decided on 29-8-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ajit Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent : S.B. Upadhyay, Advocate.
(ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Section 152-Arbitration Act, 1940-Section 29-Grant of interest by High Court in exercise of power u/s 152 of the Code-Not justified-Subordinate Judge did not grant any interest in terms of Section 29 of the Act-Remedy of respondent was either to prefer an appeal thereagainst or file a review petition-High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction could not have interfered therewith. (Para 10)
(iii) Arbitration Act, 1940-Sections 14, 15, 16, 30 and 33-Error within jurisdiction and error in excess of jurisdiction-Distinction-Question before arbitrator as to whether claim of contractor is de hors the rules or not-Jurisdiction of arbitrator in such a matter must be held to be confined to four corners of the contract.
Held : There lies a clear distinction between an error within the jurisdiction and error in excess of jurisdiction. Thus, the role of the arbitrator is to arbitrate within the terms of the contract. He has no power apart from what the parties have given him under the contract. If he has travelled beyond the contract, he would be acting without jurisdiction, whereas if he has remained inside the parameter of the contract, his award cannot be questioned on the ground that it contains an error apparent on the face of the records. (Para 22)
So far as these items are concerned, in our opinion, the learned sole arbitrator should have taken into consideration the relevant provisions contained in the agreement as also the correspondence passed between the parties. The question as to whether the work could not be completed within the period of four months or the extension was sought for on one condition or the other was justifiable or not, which are relevant facts which were required to be taken into consideration by the arbitrator. (Para 19)
However, as noticed hereinafter, this case stands on a different footing, namely, that the arbitrator while passing the award in relation to some items failed and/or neglected to take into consideration the relevant clauses of the contract, nor did he take into consideration the relevant materials for the purpose of arriving at a correct fact. Such an order would amount to misdirection in law. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and particularly keeping in view the fact that the matter relates to pure interpretation of document which gives rise to question of law and instead and in place of remitting the matter to the named arbitrator, we would direct that the disputes in relation to claim item Nos. 3, 7 and 11 be referred to Hon ble Mr. Justice D.N. Prasad, a retired Judge of the Jharkhand High Court on such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties. The learned arbitrator is requested to consider the desirability of making his award as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the fact that the matter has been pending for a long time. (Paras 40 and 41)
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.-These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 29.4.1997 passed by the High Court of Patna, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Appeal from Original Order No. 169 of 1995 (R) whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellant herein from a judgment and order dated 3.6.1995 passed by the Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Dhanbad in Title (Arbitration) Suit No. 109 of 1994 was dismissed.
Facts :
2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The parties hereto entered into a contract for construction of 140 numbers of temporary hutments, the estimated cost of which was Rs. 49,45,447.81. A formal work order was issued to the respondent herein. Entire work in terms of the agreement was to be completed within a period of four months.
3. A formal contract was entered into for the aforementioned work by and between the parties. The said contract contained an arbitration agreement. The said contractual job was not allegedly completed by the respondent within the stipulated period wherefor a request was made for extension of time till 31.12.1986 to complete the work. Further extensions of time were sought for and granted from time to time.
4. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, the arbitration agreement was invoked. The Chief Engineer of the appellant-Company was appointed as the sole arbitrator. He was to give a reasoned award. Before the arbitrator the respondent raised a claim of Rs. 55,01,640.66. The appellant herein also raised a counter claim for a sum of Rs. 28,47,860.57. By reason of an award dated 13.7.1994, the sole arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 18,97,729.37 with interest @ 18 per annum in favour of the respondent. The counter claim of the appellant, however, was rejected.
5. The said award was filed before the learned Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad for being made a rule of court in terms of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the Act ). The appellant herein in the said proceedings filed an objection under Sections 15, 16, 30 and 33 of the Act. The learned trial Judge by reason of a judgment dated 3.6.1995 rejected the said objection of the appellant and made the award as rule of Court, where-against an appeal was preferred which by reason of the impugned judgment was dismissed.
6. However, it may be noticed at this stage that the learned Subordinate Judge did not grant any interest from the date of decree in favour of the respondent wherefor an application purported to be under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. The said application was rejected on 12.12.1995 where-against the respondent preferred a civil revision application before the High Court. Both the appeal being M.A. No. 169 of 1995 (R) filed by the appellant herein and Civil Revision being C.R. No. 12 of 1996 (R) filed by the respondent herein were heard together. While disposing the appeal, the revision petition was allowed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.
Submissions :
7. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, inter alia, submitted that the respondent having accepted the final bill, a further claim by it was inadmissible. The learned counsel pointed out that as a special case the appellant granted 95 advance wherefor no interest was to be charged. The said advance was to be adjusted from the running bills. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel would contend that the arbitrator committed an illegality in entertaining Claim Item Nos. 3 and 7. The learned counsel would urge that the respondent having been granted extension, it was obligatory on the part of the learned arbitrator to consider as to whether the respondent was entitled to any compensation for the alleged loss occurred on the ground of delay in completion of work, particularly when it was agreed that the extension of time was granted subject to payment of penalty. The learned counsel would further submit that in terms of the contract the appellant ha
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
