The court affirmed that judicial review of arbitration awards is limited, allowing intervention only for evident legal errors, not for reevaluation of evidence or correctness.

JUDGMENT :

N.Tukaramji, J.

We have heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for the appellant and revision petitioner in C.M.A.No.215 of 2006 and C.R.P.No.1210 of 2006 respectively and respondent No.1 in C.M.A.No.106 of 2006 and C.R.P.No.1599 of 2006. None appeared for the respondents in C.M.A.No.215 of 2006 and C.R.P.No.1210 of 2006 and for appellant in C.M.A.No.106 of 2006 and for revision petitioners in C.R.P.No.1599 of 2006.

2. The appeals and revision petitions are against the common judgment dated 26.09.2005 in O.P.No.30 of 1996 and O.P.No.10 of 2000 passed by the learned XI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Thus, these matters are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. C.M.A.Nos.215 of 2006 and 106 of 2006 are filed assailing the decree and judgment dated 26.09.2005 in O.P.No.10 of 2000, on the file of XI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

4. C.R.P.Nos.1210 and 1599 of 2006 are filed challenging the decree and judgment dated 26.09.2005 in O.P.No.30 of 1996 passed by the XI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

5. C.M.A.No.215 of 2006 and C.R.P.No.1210 of 2006 are filed by the appellant/petitioner/contractor (hereinafter be referred as ‘the petitioner/contractor’), whereas C.M.A.No.106 of 2006 filed by the respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and C.R.P.No.1599 of 2006 filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2- Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and its Chief Engineer (hereinafter be referred to as ‘the respondent Nos.1 and 2’).

6. The case facts in brief are that the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, through its Chief Engineer/respondent Nos.1 and 2 have called for tender for construction of Road Over Bridge at Begumpet level crossing at Hyderabad and on successful bid the work was entrusted to the petitioner/contractor vide agreement No.3/CE dated 17.12.1981. However, the site was entrusted even before the date of agreement i.e. on 10.10.1981 and the construction work of bridge was completed by 20.10.1985. In regard to unagreed claims, the petitioner/contractor invoked arbitration clause and filed suit vide O.S.No.126 of 1989 for appointment of sole Arbitrator. Accordingly, the Arbitrator was appointed and after due proceedings, the arbitration award was passed on 28.01.1996 in favour of the petitioner/contractor granting Rs.89,19,792/- with interest at 18% per annum.

7. Thereupon, the petitioner/contractor instituted O.P.No.30 of 1996 with a prayer to declare the award as Rule of Court. In contrast, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed O.P.No.10 of 2000 with a prayer to set aside the award on the grounds of Arbitrator misconducted himself and by not referring to material documents biasedly passed the award.

8. The Court below on considering the claims of both the parties passed the impugned common judgment partly allowing the petition in O.P.No.30 of 1996 by making the award a Rule of Court excluding the claim for refund of cost of bearings at Rs.8,27,640/-, correspondingly partly allowed the O.P.No.10 of 2000. Aggrieved by the dismissal of claim No.1, the petitioner/contractor preferred C.M.A.No.215 of 2006 and dismissal of the petition to make the award Rule of Court to that extent, filed