Point of Law: Arbitration – Arbitral Award - Power or scope and examination of award of arbitrator by Civil Court is limited. The Civil Court has not to consider and examine the award as an Appellate Court and do not venture in the reasons stated by the Arbitrator.

JUDGMENT :

V.P. PATEL, J.

1. The Appellant-Original Plaintiff-Aakar Construction (for short ‘the Contractor’) has filed the First Appeal No. 3406 of 2001 under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act 1940, (for short ‘the Act 1940’) being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (SD), Godhra, District Panchmahal (for brevity ‘Learned Trial Court’) dated 22.9.2000 in Special Civil Suit No. 94 of 1989, preferred by the Appellant Contractor against the Respondent No. 1 Original defendant No. 1 National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. (for short ‘the Corporation’) under Section 14 read with Section 17 of the Act, 1940 which was dismissed.

1.1 The Appellant-Original Defendant No. 1-Aakar Construction (for short ‘the Contractor’) has filed the first appeal No. 3407 of 2001 under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act 1940, (for short ‘the Act, 1940’) being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (SD), Godhra, District Panchmahal (Learned Trial Court) dated 22.9.2000 in Special Civil Suit No. 129 of 1989, preferred by the Respondent No. 1 Original Plaintiff National Building Construction Corporation Ltd (for short ‘the Corporation’) against the appellant Original defendant No. 1 Aakar Contractor, under Sections 17, 30 and 33 of the Act, 1940 which was allowed and the Award passed by the Sole Arbitrator dated 14.6.1989 is quashed and set aside.

1.2 As per Para 1 of the impugned judgment, it is stated that “Both the Suits have been directed to be consolidated and to be disposed of by the common judgment. Therefore, both the parties in both the matters have laid their evidence in Special Civil Suit No. 129 of 1989 and accordingly I am herewith to dispose of both the suits by the common judgment in the interest of justice.” On perusing the Rojkam dated 11.09.2000 of the Special Civil Suit No. 94 of 1989, it is stated that “This instant suit is ordered to be consolidated with Special Suit No. 129 of 1989. However, the record proceeded in the matter referred by both the learned advocates for the parties therefore, exhibited as under.” Considering the facts that the Special Civil Suit Nos. 94 of 1989 and 129 of 1989 were consolidated and learned Trial Court has disposed both the suits by common judgment and order and learned advocates for the parties have no objection if both these Appeals are disposed of by common judgment, this Court has decided to dispose of both these First Appeals by common judgment.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. G.T. Dayani for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Kedar B. Beniwale with learned advocate Mr. K.M. Patel for the Respondent No. 1 Accused. Though the Rule is duly served to the Respondent No. 2-Arbitrator, has not chosen to appear before the Court.

Facts of the Case:

3. As per the memo of appeal as well as the plaint filed by the Corporation before the Trial Court the facts of the case are as under:

3.1 The Corporation has invited tenders for the construction of 20,000/- M.T. Capacity go-down at village Bhamiya, Taluka Godhra in Panchmahal District. The Contractor submitted the tender for 36% above the estimated cost of Rs. 81,08,552/-. The tender proposal sent by the Contractor was accepted and there was a contract to complete the work for Rs. 1,10,27,630/- with other Part-II Electricity Work for different amount. The Contractor was informed vide letter dated 14.2.1985 by the Corporation to complete the execution of Agreement and start work at once.

3.2 The Corporation, a Government of India Undertaking had entered into the agreement/contract for the construction of 20,000 MT capacity go down at Village Bahamian, Talus Godhra, District Panchmahal with the Contractor. The Appellant is a registered firm carrying on business at Alvarado.

3.3 The time limit to carryout the work and work was to be comp