Punjab State and another vs M/s Chopra Brothers (India) Pvt. Limited and another

L.N. Mittal

State of Punjab and its Superintending Engineer have filed this revision petition under Article227of the Constitution of India impugning judgment and decree dated 23.5.1994, Annexure P/2 passed by learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Ropar as well as judgment and decree dated 2.4.2009 Annexure P1 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ropar.

Respondent no. 1 - Contractor executed some work of the petitioners. Disputes arose between the parties. The disputes were referred to respondent no. 2, the then Superintending Engineer, as sole Arbitrator. Respondent no. 2 gave his award dated 13.1.1994, Annexure P/3 awarding various amounts to the Contractor for different claims. Contractor filed application u/s 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short, the Act) for directing the Arbitrator to file the original award and for making the award rule of the court.

Petitioners herein filed objections under sections 30 and 33 of the Act. I need not to refer to all the objections raised by the petitioners as counsel for the petitioners has confined his contentions to three objections which would be dealt with hereinafter.

Contractor also filed cross objections.

Learned trial court vide impugned judgment and decree Annexure P/2 dismissed the objections preferred by both the parties against the award and made the award rule of the court and passed decree accordingly. First appeal preferred by petitioner herein has been dismissed by appellate court vide impugned judgment and decree Annexure P/1. Feeling still aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been filed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the Contractor violated clauses 11, 17, 23, 40, 47, 59 and 67 of the agreement as detailed in the grounds of revision. However, the question whether the Contractor violated the said clauses of the contract or not had to be adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator and not by the Court. Civil court does not sit as court of appeal over the award of the Arbitrator. Merits of claim and counter-claim of the parties cannot be adjudicated upon by the Court. Award of the Arbitrator can be challenged on limited grounds specified in sections 30 and 33 of the Act and not on merits of adjudication done by the Arbitrator. Consequently, the aforesaid contention raised by counsel for the petitioneers cannot be accepted.

Counsel for the petitioners next contended that award dated 13.1.1994 was passed by the Arbitrator in haste because the Arbitrator was due to retire on 28.2.1994. The contention is completely fallacious and meritless. Reference to the Arbitrator was made vide letter dated 8.10.1992 by the Chief Engineer. The award was, thus, made 15 months after the Arbitrator had been appointed. Consequently, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the award was made in haste by the Arbitrator. Merely because the Arbitrator was due to retire on 28.2.1994 i.e. 11/2 months after the passing of the award, it cannot be said that the award was made in haste because the award was made 15 months after the appointment of Arbitrator.

Next contention raised by counsel for the petitioners, which was also noticed in motion order, was that under claim no. 6, Contractor claimed rate of Rs 400/- per cubic meter for the additional work but the Arbitrator has awarded rate of Rs 550/- per cubic meter i.e. even in excess of the claim made by the Contractor. The contention is again misconceived, fallacious and bereft of any merit. Perusal of the impugned award reveals that the Contractor made claim no. 6 for additional work at the additional rate of Rs 400/- per cubic meter in addition to the original rate of Rs 345/- per cubic meter i.e. for total rate of Rs 745/- per cubic meter. As against the same, the Arbitrator allowed total rate of Rs 550/- per cubic meter i.e. Rs 205/- per cubic meter in addition to the original tender rate of Rs 345/- per cubic meter. In fact, the Arbitrator found that the Contractor is entitled to total rate of Rs 597.69 per cubic meter for additional work i.e. at the additional rate of Rs 252.69 per cubic meter, but inspite of this finding, the Arbitrator awarded additional rate of Rs 205/- per cubic meter only to the Contractor because the Contractor had also mentioned total rate of Rs 550/- per cubic meter only in his claim statement. Consequently, it cannot be said that the Arbitrator has awarded amount under claim no. 6 in excess of the claim made by the Contractor.

Thus, all the three contentions raised by counsel for the petitioners are found to be devoid of any substance. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition. Impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.