Dismissed

Raj State Agriculture Mark Board and Ano v. M/S Nanag Ram Saini Thekadar and Others

Rajasthan HC4 Feb 2019CMA/3318/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging an Arbitration Tribunal's award and the District Judge's corresponding order. The Bench found no illegality or perversity in the lower court's decision to uphold the award despite arguments on interest and contractual clauses.

What did the court decide?

The Single Judge's order dismissing objections to the Arbitration Award dated 12.05.2005 is upheld; appeal is dismissed.

Raj State Agriculture Mark Board and Ano Vs M/S Nanag Ram… — Arbitration | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3318/2010

¶3

Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board through its Administrator, Krishi Bhawan, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. 2. Executive Engineer, Division-I, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Surajpol Anaj Mandi, Jaipur

¶4

Versus
;fp&;$' > ' %. <%&&& .&$# ' ..@ ,. .-' .p 8
1. Nanagram Seah edar son of - --. ihri. .,Han I
resident of 19; aba Harishchandra Marg,
'%
4qt
being represenked through his legal heirs.
ty$
111 Satnarayan ;.I. Saini
%..<
112 Ramnarayan Saini
113 Gopal Lal Saini
J
114 Jagdish Narayan Sain,i@% -:.
115 Shanti Kumar Allis.+Sa 4
116 Rajendra Kumar
All sons of Nanaara 4
Marg, Jaipur
For Appellant(s) - . lb rMf!# 'a" . u,%*F $#AFfi - L &ti!$ with Mr. Mehir Katta
For Respondent(s) gfn
HON'BLE

¶5

04/02/2019

¶6

By this Mis der Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1996"), a challenge has been made to the judgment dated 09.03.2010 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'District Judge') in Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No.336/2005 whereby the objections under Section 34 of 'the Act of 1996' to the awa-~.d 86tte.d .Y " <<$ . **i'.** **_R+_** +. %;? 12.05.2005 passed by the sole Arbitrator were dismissed. ** >' .

¶7

(2 of 4)

¶8

[CMA-3318/2010]

¶9

The necessary facts relevant for adjudication of the present appeal are that the respondent was given a construction assignment by the present appellants. After completion of the work, a dispute arose between the parties for late payment of the amount of final bill as also the security amount. To resolve the dispute, an Arbitrator was appointed, who had passed the award dated 12.05.2005. The appellants submitted objections before the District Judge. dismissed filed by the

¶10

that the appellants ns regarding waiver, payment of interest Iso objected that no interest was payabl since the same had been invested in 'FD s Patra'. It was also argued that in view of CI greement, the contractor failed to submit memo ted items along with its **_L_* justification within th 0 days from the date of disallowance. Ther respondent had been fully extinguished and a@&ggcJ?but .. : %fl37$ ,' .+. . .$,, ' ed Arbitrator and also the District Judge didenot consider the same and therefore, committed illegality in passing the award and in rejecting the objections respectively.

¶11

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the award as well as the impugned order.

¶12

So far as award of interest is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the payment on both the counts i.e. the amount of final bill and security amount was delayed without anyr'

I. ,'>' ...

(3 of 4)

[CMA-3318/2010]

reasonable justification. Therefore, the learned ~istrict 3;dge

¶17

rightly dismissed the objections in this regard.

¶18

As far as clause 7-A of the agreement is concerned, the same was rightly not made applicable to the present case by the Arbitrator because there was no dispute between the parties about any item of work.

¶19

It is settled legal position that an award can be

¶20

made out by the appella,ots .kx~+w+$p$~~& ,'@ @ a challenqe to the award as W > + :;,rpj per legal provisions.tkg2qedpj has iled point out from the Arbitrator had committed perversity i ' and how he committed any error on the face re are various judgments of the Ho'n'ble Apex tions of the courts to he exercise of power judgments of the Ho.n ay refer the cases of.

¶21

Delhi Development Authority Vs. R.S. Sharma & Co., New [(2008) 13 SCC 801 and J.G. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr. [(2011) 5 SCC 7581. In Delhi Development Authority (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as

¶22

under. :

¶23

From the above decisions, the following &- principles emerge: (a) An Award, which is

¶24

(i) contrary to substantive provisions of law ; or

¶25

(ii) the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ; oi(iii) against the terms of the respective contract ; or ('iv) patently illegal, or (v) prejudicial to the rirghts of the parties; is open to interference by the Court under Section 34(2) of the Act. c (b) The award could be set aside if it is contrary to : (a) fundamental policy of Indian Law; or (b) the interest of India; or (c) justice or morality; (c) The Award could also be set aside if it is so unfair and ~nrgaso,nablc?,:~hat vx, k*l T it ., *. shocks the conscience~~~~the @oau i. . %, $~a % .. . ,j@ (d) It i?+opgnWto the Court to con-$d<eru/vhether ,w=-%$ .g *. thed, Qqa~d is against the specific %temp of $ .&?..,' , .k cont.c8cf'and if so, interfere with it on the gpuLgd t&t@'it is patently illegal and opposed to4t$e ePPdblic policy of India. .$ @$> " '%& @+ p

¶26

the court. as then it would I

¶27

The present case is fully cov&ed by the ratio laid down

¶28

in the above case.

¶29

I do not find any illegality and perversity in the order of

¶30

the District Judge in dismissing the objections.

¶31

In the result, appeal is dismissed.