Dismissed

R T D C Ltd. and Another v. M/S Rakesh Enterprises

Rajasthan HC3 May 2023CMA/5481/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the civil miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that it could not act as an appellate court over an arbitral award and found no grounds to set aside the award as it was not contrary to law or fundamental policy.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed.

R T D C Ltd. and Another Vs M/S Rakesh… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/007452]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5481/2009

¶4

Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. through Shri K. L. Bairwa, Assistant Engineer, R.T.D.C. Hotel Swagtam Campus, Near Railway Station, Station Road, Jaipur

¶5

Chief Engineer, Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. R.T.D.C. Hotel Swagtam Campus, Near Railway Station, Station Road, Jaipur

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Rakesh Enterprises, Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. through Proprietor Shri Rakesh Kumar, Mashrafu, B-123, Sethi Colony, Agra Road, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondent-Claimant

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Tarun Kumar Mishra, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment

¶12

DATE OF JUDGMENT :: 03/05/2023

¶13

The present civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed against the order dated 11.09.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Arbitration Case No.08/2009, whereby the award dated 01.01.2000 passed by the Sole Arbitrator has been upheld.

¶14

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-RTDC issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for construction of rooms on the first floor of Hotel Gangaur, Jaipur. The respondent-claimant (for short ‘the claimant’) was the lowest bidder, so work order was issued to

[2023/RJJP/007452]

[CMA-5481/2009]

(2 of 4)

it on 22.08.1997 for an amount of Rs.27,41,899.60/- for a period from 30.08.1997 to 29.05.1998. The claimant deposited Rs.44,000/- as earnest money. Thereafter due to the fact that construction was not found to be technically viable, so contract was withdrawn vide order dated 09.02.1998. The claimant had demanded refund of earnest money without any protest. Thereafter, the claimant served a notice and prayed for appointment of an arbitrator. The claimant filed an application before the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby vide order dated 31.05.1999, Shri Pyare Mohan Bagarhatta was appointed as Sole Arbitrator. Learned Arbitrator vide order dated 01.01.2000 awarded Rs.8,45,948/- in favour of the claimant. Appellants filed an objections before the learned trial Court but learned trial Court vide order dated 11.09.2009 dismissed the objections filed by the appellants.

¶19

Learned AAG for the appellants submits that at the time of refunding the earnest money i.e. Rs.44,000/-, claimant had not filed any objection or protest. Learned AAG for the appellants also submits that in the said application, the claimant did not state a single word that the claimant had employed manpower for the said work. Learned AAG for the appellants also submits that no agreement was signed between the parties due to technical nonfeasibility but the trial Court had committed serious error in dismissing the objection filed by the appellants. Learned AAG for the appellants also submits that the order dated 11.09.2009 and award dated 01.01.2000 are not according to the provisions of Law, so these impugned orders may be set-aside.

[2023/RJJP/007452]

[CMA-5481/2009]

(3 of 4)

Learned AAG for the appellants has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PSA SICAL Terminals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Board Of Trustees of V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust Tuticorin and Others in Civil Appeal Nos.3699-3700/2018 decided on 27.08.2021 and in the case of Sutlej Construction Limited Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh reported in (2018) 1 SCC 718.

¶24

Learned counsel for the claimant has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that this Court can not sit as a court of appeal over the award passed by the Arbitrator. Award of Arbitrator can only be set-aside when it is found contrary to the Law and against the fundamental principles of Law and prejudicial to the rights of the parties, but none of the grounds exist in the present case, so, the appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

Learned counsel for the claimant has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Haryana Tourism Limited Vs. M/s Kandhari Beverages Limited in Civil Appeal No.266/2022 decided on 13.11.2021 ; (2) Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd & Anr. Vs. M/s Ramesh Kumar and Company & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.6832/2021 decided on 13.11.2021 ;(3) Ravindra Kumar Gupta and Company Vs. Union Of India in Civil Appeal No.8019/2009 decided on 03.12.2009 ;(4) Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dehil Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5627/2021 decided on 09.09.2021 ;(5) Caravel Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Premier Sea Foods Exim Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal Nos.10800-10801/2018 decided on

[2023/RJJP/007452]

[CMA-5481/2009]

(4 of 4)

29.10.2018 ; (6) State Of Rajasthan Vs. Om Construction Co. and ors. in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos.728737,743,751 and 798/2021 decided on 07.05.2015 ;(7) NTPC Ltd. Vs. Denonare Services Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal Nos.6483 and 6484/2014 decided on 04.03.2021 ; and (8) S tate of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Sachdeva Metal Works in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4362/2015 decided on 23.09.2016 .

¶30

I have considered the arguments advanced by Learned AAG for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the claimant.

¶31

It is an admitted position that Court can not sit as a court of appeal over the award of the Arbitrator. During the course of arguments, learned AAG for the appellants failed to prove that the award of the Arbitrator was contrary to the provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act or against the terms of fundamental policy of Indian Laws or suffered from patently illegality. So, in my considered opinion, none of the above grounds exist in the present case. Learned court below as well as learned Arbitrator considered all the aspects and passed the order and award in favour of the claimant. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed which stands dismissed accordingly.

¶32

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶33

Gourav/86

R T D C Ltd. and Another v. M/S Rakesh Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R T D C Ltd. and Another v. M/S Rakesh Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reliance Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Jai Devi and Ors.

Ramniwas Meena Son of Shri Kaluram Meena, Vs Smt. Kailashi Devi Daughter of Late Shri Chotu Granddaughter of Late Shri Girdhari

Reliance Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dinesh Kumar Meena and Ors.

Smt.Usha Kothari Vs Smt.Vimla Devi Soni

Sudhir Kumar Sharma and Another Vs Dr Smt Triveni Sharma

Gordhan and Ors. Vs Manohari and Ors.