The main legal point established in the judgment is that a court should not act as an appellate court when considering a challenge to an arbitral award and can only interfere with the award if specific grounds under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act are met.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the Act) challenges the correctness of order dated 04.03.2013 passed by Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Arbitration Application No.19/2012, whereby the learned court below refused to set aside the arbitral award dated 08.08.2009 in exercise of powers under Section 34 of the Act.

2. The factual background of the case is that appellant-Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. (hereinafter referred as RSMML) and Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Jaipur (hereinafter referred as RSMDCL) issued joint notice dated 21.06.2002 inviting tenders for loading of limestone gitti into trucks at Sanu Mines in the District of Jaisalmer and for its transportation from mines to railway site at Jaisalmer. The tender of respondent M/s. ACE Construction Mines and Minerals Cooperative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred as Co-operative Society) was accepted and accordingly agreement dated 23.10.2003 was signed between the parties. The respondent started the assigned work on 17.09.2002 and 20.09.2002 at the sites of both the companies. It is worth to mention that RSMDCL merged with RSMML in the year 2003.

3. The mechanized mining, crushing and tipper loading operations at the mining site was disrupted on 20.09.2002 by the then Contractor. In view of this seizure, the appellant-Company invited urgent tenders for execution of work by manual mining and breaking of LS boulders and its stacking in different stockyards. As a result whereof the lime stones were put at different scattered places spread over 10 sq. kms. area of mines and the respondent was compelled to lift manually the lime stone gitties on its truck by moving to the radius of 10 kms. A three members Committee confirmed the fact that in the changed circumstances, when the lime stone gitties were not being crushed by crusher rather breaking of lime stone was manually going on at different places, it increased the distance of carrying the gitties to the Jaisalmer Railway Siding. One further development which took place was that the loaded trucks for transportation placed by the respondent were to be weighed however, there was no weighing machine of the appellant Company at the work site for the referred period. Hence, the respondent was forced to get the weighing done at a private weigh bridge which was non en-route, further raising extra distance of 6.6 kms. The respondent raised the bill for extra work but the appellant did not pay heed. Thereafter, the respondent approached this Court under Section 11 (6) of the Act for the appointment of an Arbitrator, as terms of the contract also provided for arbitration of the contractual dispute as a mode of redressal of the grievance. The Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Arbitration Application No.06/2006 issued notice to the appellant who was respondent therein and after hearing the parties and considering the objections of the appellant, directed by order dated 26.7.2006 for appointment of an Arbitrator, for resolution of dispute raised by the respondent.

4. The learned Arbitrator framed different issues for consideration and after hearing the parties and considering the evidence brought on record, decided all the issues with reasoned order. Some of the claims of the respondent were turned down and some were allowed whereas counter claim of the appellant was not decided as it was not a part of the reference order and liberty was granted to the appellant to move to an appropriate forum.

5. Issue No.1 “Whether the claim being beyond the terms of notice inviting tender and the contract is not maintainable?” was decided in favour of the respondent with observation that there is nothing to suggest that the claim is beyond the terms of notice inviting tender or the contract. This issue has not been challenged in this appeal. Hence, it is established that the claim of the contractor was not bey