The High Court dismissed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the District Judge's dismissal of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The court held the award stood as the lower court found no scope for interference under Section 37.
Appeal dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CMA.No.418 of 2024
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
C.M.A.No.418 of 2024 and
C.M.P.No.4427 of 2024
Union of India, Rep. by Chief Engineer (FY), Hyderabad – 500 003.
(Now above appellant having been disbanded and the functions were transferred to)
Union of India, Rep. by Chief Engineer, Military Engineer Services, Chief Engineer Chennai Zone, Island Grounds, Chennai – 600 009. Rep. by Authorized Officer, Angad, IDSE, EE, Garrison Engineer, Wellington (Nilgiris).
[Cause title accepted vide Court order dated 01.11.2021 made in CMP.No.22254 of 2023 in CMA.Sr.No.109318 of 2023]
... Appellant
Vs.
1/7
CMA.No.418 of 2024
M/s.Shree Ganesh Constructions, No.34C, T.D.K.Pillai Road, Coonoor – 643 102.
... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the decree and judgment dated 13.10.2022 made in AOP.No.46 of 2018 on the file of the District Court of Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, confirming (refusing to set aside) award dated 13.11.2017 and Rectification final award dated 19.12.2017 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Dispute pertaining to CA No.CE(FY)/HYD/AVD/24 of 2010-2011.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Murugan
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the learned District Judge, Udhagamandalam passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. The proceedings before the learned District Judge emanated in the
following background: The appellant had entrusted a work of laying road with the respondent on 07.11.2010 and the work ought to have been
2/7
CMA.No.418 of 2024 completed within a period of six months that is on or before 6th May 2011. An extension of three months was granted and that came to an end on 04.08.2011. However, the respondent completed the work on 27.01.2012. After completion and handing over, the respondent had made a claim which was referred for arbitration to the Arbitrator appointed by the appellant.
3. The claims of the appellant were under five heads. The Arbitrator who is a technically qualified person had discussed each and every claim and had accepted certain claims and rejected some of them. The claim No.1 which related to the work done bills was accepted partially and an award of Rs.35,38,671.62/- was made under claim No.1. Claim No.2 which related to unnecessary expenses to the tune of Rs.40,31,860/- was rejected in toto. Claim No.3 was Bank interest payment for a period of six months. Though the Bank interest was claimed, the Arbitrator awarded only 8% Simple Interest and which worked out to Rs.14,27,264/-. On Claim No.4, which related to the administrative expenses, the Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as a consolidated sum.
4. Since the Arbitrator in the main award did not consider the counter
3/7
CMA.No.418 of 2024 claim made by the Union of India, an application was filed by the Union of
India under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which came to be disposed of by the Arbitrator on 19 December 2017. The original award was passed on 13 November 2017. Aggrieved the Union preferred an application under Section 34 before this Court and the same was returned by this Court on the ground of jurisdiction and hence the instant original petition before the District Judge, Udhagamandalam.
5. Before the learned District Judge several grounds were urged and
the learned District Judge found that most of the grounds are grounds that could be raised in an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure as against the original decree of a Court. The learned District Judge pointed out the limited jurisdiction of the Courts under Section 34 and examined the matter in the light of the judicial pronouncements which set out the scope of the proceedings under Section 34. The learned District Judge has come to a conclusion that none of the grounds urged will fall within the eight pigeon holes enumerated under Section 34. On the said finding the learned District Judge dismissed the award. Hence, this appeal.
4/7
CMA.No.418 of 2024
6. We have heard Mr.A.Murugan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant.
7. Mr.A.Murugan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
strenuously contend that the award is perverse, in as much as, it does not take into account the delay in completion of the work on the part of the respondent. He would also point out that the contractor did not seek extension beyond 04.08.2011.
8. The very same grounds were urged before the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator had given reasons for rejecting the contentions of the Union and granted an award in favour of the respondent. Those grounds cannot be reagitated in a Section 34 application. We find that the learned District Judge has examined the contentions in the light of the provisions of the Section 34 and has reached a plausible conclusion, which cannot be interfered with by us exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
5/7
CMA.No.418 of 2024
9. We do not see any merits in this appeal. The appeal therefore fails
and it is accordingly dismissed . No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.M., J.) (R.S.V., J.)
07.03.2024
dsa
Index : No Internet : Yes Neutral Citation : No Speaking order
To
The District Judge, Court of Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam.
6/7
CMA.No.418 of 2024 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
dsa
C.M.A.No.418 of 2024
07.03.2024
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the challenge to the District Judge's order dismissing the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act falls within the limited jurisdiction under Section 37.
Whether findings of fact by the Arbitrator regarding delay and rejection of claims can be reagitated before this Court.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Union of India, Rep. by Chief Engineer, Military Engineer Services / Authorized Officer, Angad
M/s. Shree Ganesh Constructions
R. Subramanian
R. Sakthivel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
