An arbitrator cannot exceed jurisdiction by awarding claims not supported by written approval as mandated by the contract, rendering the award illegal.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.08.2009 passed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1996) by learned Subordinate Judge-I at Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 57 of 2007 whereby an award dated 17.07.2007 made and published by the sole Arbitrator has been set-aside.

Foundational Facts.

3. The appellant herein was the claimant before the learned Arbitrator, who was allotted the work for construction of minor bridge on N.H. 23 in K.M. 49 pertaining to National Highway Road Construction Department, Dhanbad Division No. 2 for which an agreement was executed between the parties on 04.03.1992, containing an arbitration clause, for the total value of Rs. 34,92,803/- which was to be completed by 03.09.1993.

4. As per the appellant, additional work was done which was necessary for completion of the bridge and the inflow of traffic. The appellant, on the direction of the Engineer In-charge and assurance of extra payment, executed certain additional and extra work which was not provided in the item of work in the agreement. The work as per the agreement and also the additional work was completed on 31.08.2001 i.e. within the extended time.

5. The claim of the appellant was first placed before the Junior Engineer who prepared a report dated 16.06.2003. Thereafter, vide letter no. 7(A) dated 17.06.2003, the Executive Engineer recommended and placed the matter before the Superintending Engineer for his approval and payment. The Superintending Engineer sent a letter to the Chief Engineer on 22.09.2003 stating that the extra work done by the appellant was not included in the item of work in the agreement and made the recommendation for sanction of funds. However, no payment was made to the appellant.

6. When all attempts to persuade the authorities to make payment failed and having found no other alternative to recover the legitimate dues, the appellant filed a petition under section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 before this Court bearing Arbitration Application No. 28 of 2004 which was disposed of vide order dated 21.06.2006 wherein the arbitration was referred to the sole Arbitrator and direction was given to the learned Arbitrator to enter into reference and to pass an award within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order, which was received on 25.07.2006. However, the award was pronounced on 17.07.2007.

7. There was a total of four claims and claim no. 1 was divided into 5 sub-claims. The summary of the award in connection with the claims is as under: