1. Heard Mr. Himanshu Kumar Mehta, Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant along with Mrs. Manjushri Patra, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent along with Mr. Manish Mishra, Advocate.

3. This Arbitration Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 21.12.2017, passed in Misc. Case No. 5/2006 by Civil Judge (Senior Division No. 1) Singhbhum East at Jamshedpur whereby the petition filed under Section 34 read with Section 16(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been dismissed and the award dated 20.12.2005 published by the sole Arbitrator, Dr. C.K. Singh, retired Engineer in Chief, PWD, Jharkhand has been upheld.

ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT

4. Counsel for the appellant during the course of hearing has confined his argument only to the ground, which was also raised by the appellant before the learned court below, that the award has been passed in contravention of Section 24 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is the specific case of the appellant that the State of Jharkhand was never given an opportunity to make oral arguments and adduced evidence. The counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had raised specific point in the petition for setting aside the award under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that no date of hearing of the arbitration proceeding was ever fixed by the sole Arbitrator after filing of written statement/reply on behalf of the State on 11.11.2005 and the corresponding ground no. 1 alleging that the award has been passed in contravention of Section 24 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He further submits that serious prejudice was caused to the State on account of the aforesaid fact and specific plea was taken to this effect also in the petition for setting aside the award under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 indicating non consideration of certain materials.

5. Counsel further submits that the respondent herein had also filed a rejoinder to the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In response to paragraph no. 24 of the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it was stated that the Arbitral Tribunal proceeded on the basis of documents submitted to make and publish the award. He submits that it is an admitted fact that there was no hearing even as per the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent before the learned court below. The plea of non-consideration of certain materials by the learned arbitrator was also admitted.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Arbitrator in his award has mentioned at internal page no. 6 that parties were heard at length and they were given an opportunity to argue orally and submit their statement that they wanted to be taken on record and full opportunity was granted to the parties for presentation of their case. Counsel submits that these recordings by the learned Arbitrator is wholly incorrect and the same is in direct conflict and contrary to the recordings in the proceeding sheet of the learned Arbitrator which has been called for by this court.

7. The learned Counsel by referring to the proceeding sheet of the learned Arbitrator has referred to various orders and submits that upon perusal of order sheet it appears that till the last date of hearing, the parties were exchanging the pleadings and thereafter straightway the award was published and no date of hearing, after filing of objection by the appellant-State to the claim , was even fixed by the learned Arbitrator. Counsel submits that this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the learned court below while deciding the case filed for setting aside the award, being Misc. Case No. 5/2006.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to para 9 and 13 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 5 SCC 705, to