SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Mad) 1105

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJA
M/s.Brick Steel Enterprises a registered Partnership Firm, rep.by its Managing Partner - Appellant
Versus
The Superintending Engineer - Respondents
C.R.P.(PD) No.424 of 2005
Decided On : 19 April 2006

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:K. Bijai Sundar, Advocate. For the Respondent: S. Senthilnathan, AGP.

In a petition for setting aside arbitral award, parties are not allowed to let in fresh evidence or new plea.

Headnote:Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) - Challenge to arbitral ward-In a petition under Sec. 34 for setting aside arbitral award, parties are not allowed to let in fresh evidence or new plea- Only documents already filed and considered by Arbitrator can be filed.

       

Judgment :-

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.12.2004 passed in I.A. No.1384/2 004 in Ar.O.P. No.107/1999 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Salem.)

The petitioner herein, is a registered Partnership Firm having its office at No.1, Om Sakthi Buildings, State Bank Colony-III, Salem-4 and the respondent herein, invited a tender on 18.09.1986 for the construction of office buildings in two blocks for the Collectorate, Vellore in Vellore District. The petitioner was the successful tenderer. The petitioner and respondent entered into an agreement on 09.06.198 7. The value of the work was estimated at Rs.1,57,59,319/-. As per the agreement, the work has to be completed within 17 months from the date of handing over the site. The site was handed over by the respondent to the petitioner on 11.06.1987. As per the terms of the agreement, the work entrusted to the petitioner should be completed on or before 10.11.1988. The petitioner did not complete the work within the stipulated time. The petitioner had completed the work only on 2 5.07.1990, after a lapse of 37 = months. After completion of the work, final bill was settled to the petitioner on 30.08.1990. Later, the petitioner herein, filed A.O.P. No.53 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Salem for appointment of an Arbitration and to refer the matter to decide the dispute. Later Thiru K.E. Mohan, F.I.C. A. Consulting Engineer was appointed as Arbitrator on 02.04.1997 to decide the dispute between the parties. The Arbitrator passed the award dated 27.07.1998 and communicated to the respondent on 27.07.1999 and received by the respondent on 29.07.1999. Aggrieved by the award, the respondent filed an application for setting aside the Arbitration Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 199 6 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) in A.O.P. 107 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Salem and contended that the award should be set aside on the ground that the award is vitiated and the error apparent on the face of the award in construing the contract and on the ground of not appreciating the vital documents and on procedural deviation and on the ground of omission of discussing the vital matters. The petitioner also filed counter affidavit and stated that the application filed under Section 34 of the Act by the respondent should be dismissed on the ground that the Trial Court is not a court of appeal to sit on judgment over the award so as to give a finding regarding the merits. The scope of setting aside the award is very limited one and hence the same should be dismissed with costs.

2. Pending the application for setting aside, the respondent filed I.A. dated 02.08.2004 requesting the Court to receive certain documents and also requested the Court to condone the delay in presenting the said documents. It was filed under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC. It was stated in the I.A. that certain documents were relevant for deciding the issue but unfortunately these documents were not produced before the Arbitrator at the time of hearing due to reasons that the said documents were so voluminous and kept in various files and hence could not be looked into and produced before the Arbitrator at the time of hearing. Now they have traced out and hence the Court below may receive the same. Further the respondent also sent a notice to the petitioner to produce Income Tax Return for the period 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90, Labour payment details for the work period and details of materials purchased during the work period and also the list of test for the materials conducted with details of test results and details of payment. The petitioner filed a memo of objection in respect of the notice for production of documents and stated that it is not open to the respondent to conduct de novo trial in respect of the application filed to set aside the awa

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top