Arbitration Act, 1940 – ss.30 and 33 – Jurisdiction of Courts – Scope:
Held: A claim crystallizes upon the issuance of the final bill which in this case was on 14.12.1992 – Contractor’s complaint with respect to payment was first aired in 1988; the rejection resulted in an appeal before the higher authority, who never rendered his opinion or decision – Even in 1993, (after the final bill was drawn), no decision was given – Thus, the claim before the civil court for the appointment of the arbitrator made in January, 1995 was within the period of limitation – Further, on facts, the question of claims not being within the contracted period, i.e., within the 30-day time granted after foreclosure of the contract, does not arise – On account of the inordinate delay (in the decision by the authorities, resulting in five extensions of time by mutual consent), the contractor voluntarily sought foreclosure – That request was acceded to – Originally, the period of completion of the contract/works was eighteen months – The request for foreclosure, therefore, was deemed reasonable by the department and accepted upon receipt of the appellant contractor’s letter dated 06.04.1990 – Thus, there could have been no objection to delay in submission of the claim for dispute resolution or arbitration given the department itself sat over the request for settlement of disputes for more than 6 years – The scope of jurisdiction of a court, u/ss.30/33 never extended beyond discerning if the award disclosed an “error apparent on the face of the award” which is an “error of law apparent on the face of the award and not an error of fact – In the present case, the award did not facially disclose any error of law; damages were awarded in accordance with principles embodied in law, and the findings were based on the evidence placed before the tribunal – Impugned judgment and the judgment of the trial court set aside – Award restored. Arbitration – Arbitration award – Interference – Duty of Courts: Held: While adjudging whether an arbitration award calls for interference, Courts have to be conscious that the arbitrator is the sole judge of facts; unless an error of law is shown, interference with the award should be avoided.
Arbitration – Irregularity alleged making claim untenable: Held: There is no merit in the respondent-State’s submission that the record became defective and procedurally the claim became untenable because the tribunal was not informed and the appellant did not bring all heirs of the original contractor on the record – This irregularity was cured because the trial court’s judgment had arrayed all legal representatives of the deceased.
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi v Delhi Development Authority [1988]
3 SCR 351; J.C. Budhraja v. Chairman, Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. and Another (2008) 2 SCC 444 : [2008] 1 SCR 821; Bijendra Nath Srivastava v. Mayank Srivastava [1994] Supp 2 SCR 529; Trustees of Port of Madras v. Engineering Constructions [1995] Supp 2 SCR 672 – relied on. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.