The jurisdiction of the Court to set aside an arbitral award is limited, and the Court cannot sit in appeal against the findings and fact of law arrived at by the learned Arbitrator unless the award is shown to be suffering from the error of law and facts apparent on the face of the record or in conflict with public policy.

Tashi Rabstan, J.

This is a petition tiled by petitioner-Union of India in terms of Section 34 of Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 for setting aside award dated 25-7-2011 passed by the Sole Arbitrator Col. Tarun Sharma. The award passed by the Sole Arbitrator Col. Tarun Sharma. The award passed by the Sole Arbitrator has been challenged on varieties of grounds, which would be adverted to hereinafter, but before that brief resume of the facts made by petitioner-Union of India, are that Tender was invited by the Garrison Engineer (South) in April, 1998 for making provisions of augmentation of water supply to 10 Inf. Div. Signal Regiment P.R.O. Unit at Akhnoor, in which respondent No.1-Contractor, i.e. M/s. K.K. Enterprises, emerged a successful bidder. His bid was accepted and work aforesaid was allotted to him. The terms and conditions of execution of the work were laid down in the Contract Agreement executed between Union of India and respondent No. 1. Petitioner-Union of India contends that respondent No. 1, who was supposed to complete the work within a period of six months, did not proceed with the work with promptitude and his attitude from the very beginning was un-co-operative and litigation prone. It is further allegation of the petitioner-Union of India that respondent No. 1 avoided to complete the work on one pretext or the other, which ultimately forced the petitioner to cancel the Contract Agreement on 25-08-2000 and re-advertise the balance work at I lie risk and cost of respondent No. 1. Petitioner-Union of India claims that this was done in exercise of powers derived under Contract Agreement. Petitioner-Union of India claims that for getting balance work executed through new contract, extra expenditure to the tune of 1,45,573.29 was incurred by petitioner-Union of India. In view of aforesaid development, dispute arose between parties and Chief Engineer, Udhampur, referred the matter to respondent No. 2, Sole Arbitrator, to adjudicate upon the dispute pertaining to the Contract Agreement aforesaid. Learned Arbitrator entered into the reference on 29-06-2010 and after conducting proceedings, vide communication dated 25-7-2011 has passed the award.

2. It is this award, which is assailed by petitioner-Union of India primarily on the grounds that the same is against law and facts as well as against the conditions of Agreement. That the claims of respondent No. 1 were time barred, therefore, Contract No. Ges/AKH-14/98-99 was cancelled on 25-8-2000. Vide letter No. 8100/GES/AKH-14/98-99/E8 dated 15-9-2001 (Annexure-PB), Union of India invoked Condition No. 70 of IAFW-2249 for the appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute and vide letter No. KE/AKH-14/98-99/54/E8 dated 17-2-2004 (Annexure-PC), respondent No. 1 was asked to forward the claim, if any for onward submission to the appointing authority. The Arbitrator was appointed in the year 2010 and the Arbitrator entered into reference on 29-6-2010. It is further case of the petitioner-Union of India that the claims put forth before the Arbitrator were time barred, after thought and were out of the ambit of the Arbitration. The Arbitrator was apprised of this fact, but, the learned Arbitrator had no concept of Limitation Act and passed the Award dated 25-7-2011, which was not only against the substantive law but also against the spirit of Sections 18, 24 and 28 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1987. That Award dated 25-7-2011 is directly against and in conflict with the public policy of the State and requires to be set aside.

3. Before proceeding to deal with the grounds of challenge taken by the petitioner, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 34 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 as under:-

"34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.

(1) Recourse to a court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2)