N.G. Nandi, J.
(1) The award filed by the sole arbitrator Shri Shiv Prakash has been admitted and numbered as suit. Thereafter notices under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act appears to have been issued to the parties. Objections have been filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act on behalf of the claimant-Union of India against the award dated 22.3.1990 which have been numbered as I.A. No.9717 of 1991.
(2) It is stated in the objections by the claimant that the award is for an amount of Rs.75,000.00 in favor of the respondent. It disallows the entire claim of Rs.6,95,014.00 made by the claimant on patently false basis. It is stated that the award is liable to be set aside because there are patent errors on the face of record. The arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings and misconstrued the evidence by disallowing claim of the claimant for Rs.6,95,014.00 and by allowing the claim of Rs.75,000.00 of the respondent-Central Cables (Pvt.) Ltd. in a highly arbitrary manner. That the arbitrator has neither considered nor appreciated the unrebuttable evidence on record, he has arbitrarily disallowed the total claim of the claimant by ignoring the contractual provisions and documents. The arbitrator has deliberately misinterpreted the risk purchase clause and wrongly concluded, without any factual basis, that the risk purchase contract placed on the respondent was not concluded within the period of six months, as provided under the original contract. That this is wrong on the face of record. That as per the contract the claimant is entitled to recover the loss suffered by the claimant as the respondent-contractor did not supply the ordered stores against the contract. The claim of the claimant has been disallowed by the arbitrator on patently false ground that the risk purchase contract placed on the respondent was not concluded within a period of six months as provided in the contract. That the notice for cancellation of the contract already placed on the respondent was issued on 16.4.1986 and the risk purchase contract was concluded by issue of A.T. dated. 29.8.1986 accepting the offer of another contractor dated 21.6.1986. As such the concluded contract came into existence on 29.8.1986 which is well within a period of six months. That the arbitrator has not acted judiciously while granting the claim of Rs.75,000.00 in favor of the respondent because the security deposit by the contractor could be refunded only after satisfactory completion of the contract, which admittedly was never done.
(3) The respondent filed reply to the objections contending that the arbitrator has given a complete and proper reasoning after giving sufficient and proper opportunities as were required by both the parties from time to time and after examining the original documents and perusing the same as produced before him and after hearing the parties at length made his award. The award in dispute is final in regard to both the facts as well as law. This Court is not sitting in appeal against the award of the arbitrator and the objections as raised are in the nature of appeal and that the objections raised by the petitioner are required to be dismissed summarily. That the objections are totally vague, devoid of particulars, incorrect and have no meaning.
(4) It has been submitted by Mr. Sharma, counsel appearing for the petitioner i.e. Union of India that Annexure-II is not considered by the arbitrator. That the forfeiture was because of non delivery of articles within the stipulated time. That the award deserves to be set aside . As against this, it is submitted by Mr. Shiv Khurana, counsel appearing for the respondent that no reappreciation of evidence is permissible and that all points have been considered by the arbitrator. That the supply of the respondent was accepted by the petitioner and that the contract was concluded within the period of six months and there is no violation of the terms in the contract.
(5) It will be seen from the objections raised by the petitioner-Union of India that the claim of Rs.6,95,014.00 was disallowed because the arbitrator has deliberately misconstrued the evidence and there are errors on the face of record. It is also the say of the petitioner that the arbitrator has neither considered nor appreciated the unrebuttable evidence and arbitrarily disallowed the claim.
(6) It is held by the Supreme Court in the case of
(7) I have perused the award rendered by the arbitrator. The arbitrator has held that the risk purchase made by the claimant-Union of India at the risk and cost of the respondents contractor is not legally and contractually valid for the reason that the risk purchase contract placed on M/s. Industrial Cables (India) Ltd. has not been concluded within the period of 6 months as provided under the subject contract in as much as the risk purchase contract is stated to have been concluded by issue of Advance R/P A/T dated 29.8.1986 in pursuance of the offer of the firm dated 21.6.186 followed by subsequent correspondence dated 4.8.1986 and 22.8.1986. It is further reasoned that on comparison of the offer of the firm and the advance R/P A/T dated 29.8.1986, the terms and conditions thereof are not identical or similar. Hence, the advance R/P A/T dated 29.8.1986 would be in the nature of counter offer.......... Therefore, the risk purchase contract must have been concluded between the parties within a period of six months i.e. by 31.8.1986. Hence, the risk purchase contract has not been placed upon M/s. Industrial Cables (India) Ltd. within the period as provided under the subject contract placed upon the respondents. It is also stated that the terms of delivery and security deposits were also not identical.
(8) Thus it would be seen that the arbitrator has given his reasons for holding that the risk purchase contract has not been placed upon the respondents within the time as provided under the subject contract. It is held in the decision by the Supreme Court in the case of
(9) In the decision by the Apex Court in the case of
(10) In the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
(11) In the instant case, as pointed out above, the arbitrator has given reasons for reaching the conclusions with regard to the claim raised before him together with the counter claim. The award of the arbitrator, as pointed out above, is a reasoned one. It does not appear that the conclusion reached by the arbitrator is not conceivable and possible. It does not appear that there is any error apparent on the face of record and simply because, assuming that, the arbitrator reached on wrong conclusion or failed to appreciate the facts, the same would be no ground to set aside the award.
(12) Following the principle laid-down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, it would not be open to this Court reappreciate and reexamine the evidence as this Court cannot sit in appeal against the award rendered by the arbitrator and in view of the principle aforestated as laid-down by the Supreme Court the objections raised by the Union of India-petitioner are liable to be dismissed.
(13) For this reason issue No.1 is answered in the negative.
(14) At the time of hearing, the question with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court having not been argued, I answer the same in the affirmative
(15) The result of the above discussion is that the objections filed by the petitioner-Union of India are hereby rejected and the award rendered by the sole Arbitrator Shiv Prakash is made a rule of the Court and a decree be drawn up in terms of the award with 9% interest from the date of the award till the realisation of the amount by the respondent Central Cables (Pvt.)Ltd. Decree accordingly in favor the respondent. The award shall form part of the decree.
(16) I.AS. No.1212/91 and 9717/91 and the suit stand disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
