Point of Law: Work Contract - Arbitration - We should make the law of arbitration simple, less technical and more responsible to the actual realities of the situation, but must be responsive to the canons of justie and fair play and make the Arbitrator adhere to such process and norms which will create confidence, not only by doing justice between the parties, but by creating a sense that justice appears to have been done.

ORDER :

1. The appellants herein through the medium of instant appeal challenge Judgment dated 31-05-2007 (for short impugned Judgment) passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jammu (for short court below) in case titled as Smt. Roshni Devi and Others vs. Union of India and Others.

Background facts:

2. The background facts those stem out from the memo of appeal as stated therein reveal that a contract bearing No. CEJK-11/83-84 for providing the married accommodation to Officers at Udhampur was allotted to a contractor namely “Vishnu Kumar Gupta” (deceased predecessor in interest of the respondents herein) by the appellants herein.

3. It is being stated that the deceased signed the final bill on 07-10-1986 with a declaration that he had no further claims and that subsequently the said final bill was paid to the deceased contractor on 03-04-1987, where after receiving the same, the deceased contractor intimated the department vide communication dated 14-07-1988, a statement of unpaid items of work with a claim appended to said communication which communication is stated to have been acknowledged by the appellants herein.

4. It is being further state that the said claims were refused by the appellants herein where upon the deceased contractor is stated to have approached this Court while filing Arbitration Petition No. 302/1989 for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act (for short the Act) which is stated to have been dismissed by this Court vide Judgment dated 30-07-1990 on the ground of limitation. The said Judgment is stated to have been assailed by the deceased contractor in an appeal before the Division Bench which appeal is stated to have been allowed vide Judgment dated 31-03-1995 holding the Arbitration Petition filed by the deceased contractor under Section 20 to be within time.

5. It is being stated that as a consequence of the Judgment of the Division Bench dated 31-03-1995, the Arbitration Petition got revived and transferred subsequently to the Court of District Judge, Jammu for adjudication.

6. It is being further stated that the Arbitration Petition came to be allowed by the District Judge, Jammu vide order dated 17-03-1997 directing the Engineer-in-chief, Army HQ to appoint an arbitrator within one month who will enter upon the reference and make an award within the statutory period of four months.

7. It is being further stated that the respondents herein filed a petition for appointment of new arbitrator before the Court of Additional District Judge, Jammu which came to be resisted by the appellants herein on the ground that the arbitrator as per the directions of the District Judge, Jammu dated 17-03-1997 was appointed and delay was caused because of misrepresentation of claim by enhancing/modifying the claims from 7.89 lacs to 14.12 lacs by the deceased contractor.

8. It is being further stated that the Learned Additional District Judge, Jammu vide its Judgment dated 4-08-1997 disposed of the said petition directing the parties to cause appearance before the arbitrator on 16-08-1997 and that the arbitrator shall make and publish the award within the statutory period of four months.

9. It is being further stated that in pursuance to order dated 17-03-1997 passed by the District Judge, Jammu, the Engineer-in-chief vide letter dated 10-06-1997 appointed one Brig. G.R. Sud as an arbitrator who entered upon the reference and the parties submitted their claims and pleadings before him. The said Arbitrator is however stated to have resigned during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings vide his letter dated 28-11-1997 owing to his superannuation, whereafter it is being stated that one Brig. T.K. Mittal came to be appointed as a new arbitrator by the competent authority vide letter dated 10-03-1998.

10. It is being further stated that 21 claims were preferred by the deceased contractor totaling 7.89 lacs on 14-07-1988 which however, came to be subsequently enhanced by his alleged partn