Back
2009 Supreme(UK) 593
2010 (1) UAD 387
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar
Civil Appeal No. 8019 of 2009
M/S. RAVINDRA KUMAR GUPTA & CO. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
Decided on : 03.12.2009
For the Respondent:Mr. Bishwajit Bhattacharyya, ASG, Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Mr. Aditya Sharma, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates
Headnote:Arbitration Act, 1940, Sec. 30 — Objections against award of arbitration — Court's jurisdiction — Scope — Jurisdiction of Court in the matter is limited and it cannot hear objections agaisnt the award as an appellate Court — As the arbitrator is the sole arbiter of the dispute referred — High Court, in appeal against findings of Civil Court making the award the rule of the Court, cannot re-appreciate the evidence led by the parties before the arbitrator — Findings recorded by the arbitrator could not be said to be either perverse or based on no evidence — High Court cannot substitute the findings of arbitrator with its opinion on appreciation of evidence — Such course not permissible to High Court while examining objections to the award u/s 30 of the Act, 1940. (Paras 9 to 13, 19)
vkfcZVªs'ku ,DV] 1940] /kkjk 30 & vkfcZVªs'ku ,okMZ ds fo#) vkifRr;k¡ lqus tkus ds lEcU/k esa U;k;ky; dk dk;Z{ks= ,oa foLrkj & mPp U;k;ky; vihysV U;k;ky; dh Hkkafr vkifRr;ksa dh lquokbZ ugha dj ldrk & bl lEcU/k esa U;k;ky; dk dk;Z{ks= lhfer gS & ih MCY;w fd vkfcZVªsVj Lo;aHkw foospd vFkok iap izLrqr fd;s x;s okn esa gksrk gS & vihy esa nhokuh U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; esa iap fu.kZ; dks U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; ekurs gq, vkfcZVªsVj ds lEeq[k izLrqr lk{; dk iquewZY;kadu ugha dj ldrk vkfcZVsªVj }kjk fn;k x;k fu.kZ; uk rks vuqfpr ekuk tk ldrk gS uk gh fcuk lk{; ij vk/kkfjr dgk tk ldrk gS & mPp U;k;ky; lk{; dk ewY;kadu djds viuh jk; vkfcZVªsVj ds fu.kZ; esa izLFkkfir ugha dj ldrk & /kkjk 30 vf/kfu;e 1940 ds vUrxZr vkifRr;ksa dh lquokbZ djrs le; ,okMZ ds lEcU/k esa fdlh izdkj dk gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk vuqeU; ugha gSA
¼izLrj 9 ls 13] 19½
Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. — Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment dated 10.7.2007 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital whereby the Appeal from Order (AC) No. 322 of 1998 New No. 242 of 2001 filed by Union of India challenging the award of the arbitrator has been partly allowed.
3. The grievance made by the appellant before us is that the High Court travelled beyond its jurisdiction in re-appreciating the evidence led by the parties before the arbitrator and by substituting its own conclusions for the conclusions recorded by the arbitrator. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the award of the Labour Court had been made the rule of the court by the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Roorkee (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Court). While considering the objections raised by the Union of India, the Civil Court took due notice of the evidence led by the parties before the arbitrator. It has been specifically held that the arbitrator has not acted beyond the scope of the reference nor can it be said that the arbitrator has misconducted himself in law or procedure.
4. We may notice here the relevant facts.
The appellant (hereinafter referred to as a contractor), was allotted certain civil works on 22.3.1988. Initially, the work was scheduled to be completed on or before 28.06.1989. however by mutual agreement, the period of contract was extended from time to time and finally till 5.11.1990. The work was completed on 3.11.1990.
5. Disputes arose between the parties after completion of the work regarding the work and payment of the same. The contractor invoked the arbitration clause contained in Clause 70 of the agreement, dated 22.3.1988. Necessary claim was filed before the sole arbitrator under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 on 21.4.1994. Both the parties participated in the proceedings.
6. The arbitrator, after elaborate discussion of the entire evidence led by the parties, passed the award dated 30.10.96.
7. Thereafter the contractor filed Original Suit No. 184/96 in the Civil Court with a prayer for making the award of the sole arbitrator rule of the Court. The Union of India also filed Miscellaneous Suit No. 147/96, with a prayer for setting aside the Award. Both the suits were heard together by the Civil court. In the miscellaneous suit it was pleaded by the Union of India that the award of the arbitrator is infirm being against the law and available evidence. As such the arbitrator has misconducted himself in law. The main issue between the parties is with regard to claim No. 5. It was stated by Union of India that the arbitrator had acted beyond its jurisdiction by allowing claim No. 5 of the contractor, contrary to the provision contained in Clause 11(c) of IAFW 2249, which is part of the agreement, dated 22.3.1988. The Civil Court duly framed issues. It took due notice of the objections raised by the Union of India. It was submitted on behalf of Union of India, that the arbitrator cannot accept any claim going beyond the scope of the dispute entrusted and referred to him. The Civil Court specifically observed as follows:
“In the present case, dispute of loss suffered by the decree holder for the hold-ups and delay was referred to the arbitrator and the ID. Arbitrator has decided this dispute within his jurisdiction.”
8. It has been specifically observed by the Civil Court that the parties had placed the case before the arbitrator on the point in issue. It is further observed that the arbitrator has passed the award giving reasons in detail. Therefore it cannot be said that the arbitrator has acted beyond the scope of reference.
9. The Civil Court took due notice of the settled propositions of law that at the time of hearing of objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 the Court jurisdiction of the Court is limited. It has also been noticed that the Court” cannot hear the objections against the award as an appellat
