Dr. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.:- A Petition was instituted for challenging an arbitral award governed by the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by his Judgment and Order dated 18th November, 1997, did not find any merit in the grounds urged under Section 30 for impugning the validity of the award. An Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment of the learned single Judge in so far as the Court declined to accede to the challenges to the award.

2. On 27th May, 1983, the Chief General Engineer of the Western Railways awarded a contract to the respondents for the work of channelisation of the Mahim Creek. The work involved carrying out protection work for Railway Bridge No.20 between Mahim and Bandra. A formal document evidencing the terms of the contract was accordingly entered into between the parties. The Agreement dated 29th August, 1983, inter alia, contained a provision in regard to the arbitration of disputes. Disputes having been raised by the respondents, a Suit was instituted before this Court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Suit was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation. In an Appeal filed by the respondents, a Division Bench of this Court directed by an Order dated 15th March, 1995 that the Appellants shall appoint an arbitrator within a period of eight weeks, failing which the respondents were at liberty to move the Court. By a subsequent Order, a further extension of time was granted to the Appellants to appoint an arbitrator within four weeks, failing which it was directed that Shri. S. M. Joglekar, a retired Chief Engineer, would stand appointed as the sole arbitrator. Upon the failure of the Appellants to nominate an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause, Shri. S. M. Joglekar stood appointed as the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator entered upon the reference. The Union of India had filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in order to challenge the order of the Division Bench. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 4th April, 1997. While dismissing the Petition, the Supreme Court observed that the Union of India had failed to appoint an arbitrator upon which the Order passed by the High Court on 15th March, 1995 had attained finality. The Supreme Court observed that once the Order of the Division Bench dated 15th March, 1995 was not challenged by the Appellants herein, no case for interference was made out for setting aside the consequential Order that was under challenge. While clarifying that the remedies of the parties in respect of the merits of the award would not be affected, the Supreme Court held that the question as to the jurisdiction of the sole arbitrator would remain concluded.

3. The sole arbitrator having entered upon the reference, rendered an award dated 22nd March, 1997. The award was challenged before a learned single Judge of this Court in a Petition under Section 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The Petition came to be dismissed by a Judgment and Order dated 18th November, 1997. During the pendency of the Appeal, a Division Bench of this Court directed on 14th December, 1999 that the attachment that had been levied in execution of the award shall remain stayed, subject to the Appellants depositing the decretal amount with the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The amount was to be payable to the Respondents, subject to furnishing of adequate security to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The Court has been informed that the amount has accordingly been deposited and has been withdrawn by the respondents upon furnishing security.

4. The challenge to the Judgment of the learned single Judge and consequently to the award is that the award is against the provisions of the contract and that the arbitrator had ignored the stipulations contained in the Agreement between the parties that would govern th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document