HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1422 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been directed against common judgment dated 21.09.2007 in Arbitration O.P.No.214 of 2005 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.15 of 2005 on the file of District Judge, Karimnagar. The said civil miscellaneous appeal and arbitration O.P. are directed against the award dated 19.04.2004, whereunder the claims of the respondent No.1 herein, who was the claimant were partly allowed and partly dismissed.
2. The appellant herein aggrieved by the orders in favour of respondent No.1 herein preferred arbitration O.P and respondent No.1 herein aggrieved by disallowing of certain prayers preferred civil miscellaneous appeal before the Court below. The Court below by way of the impugned common judgment partly allowed the claim of respondent No.1 herein by enhancing first running bill amount from Rs.2,09,116.13/- to Rs.2,70,834.13/- and rest of the claim made by respondent No.1 herein was rejected and consequently, the claims of the appellant were also dismissed confirming the 2 ML,J CMA_1422_2008 findings of the Arbitrator. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is at the instance of the respondent before the Arbitrator.
3. The main challenge in the present appeal is that the Arbitrator has not taken into consideration the readiness expressed by the appellant to pay amounts due under the contract to respondent No.1 and in fact, respondent No.1 did not show any inclination to receive the amounts, which it is entitled under the contract. It is also contended that the appellant has disallowed the claim regarding the price of supply of steel and MS plates, but for rest of the amounts they were ready and in fact the respondent No.1 have not received rest of the amounts, as such they are not entitled for any such amount.
4. None appeared and there is no representation from the respondents.
5. Admittedly, the amounts which are ordered to refund were not assailed before this Court and the only challenge is with regard to grant of interest and some other amounts relating to transport charges and other charges. The scope of appeal is very limited. The appellate Courts would only interfere in the award when there is perversity in the findings. In the present case, admittedly 3 ML,J CMA_1422_2008 appellant retained the amounts which respondent No.1 is entitled to receive towards the work done by them. There is no material to show that the appellant has shown any inclination to refund the amount. Admittedly, the amount is with appellant only and they have enjoyed the amount which the respondent No.1 is entitled to receive. The Arbitrator also granted interest towards the loss sustained by the respondent No.1 herein for usage of amount by appellant, which respondent No.1 is entitled for. Such findings of the Arbitrator or the Court below do not suffer from any lack of jurisdiction or perversity. Therefore, this civil miscellaneous appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed confirming the common judgment dated 21.09.2007 in Arbitration O.P.No.214 of 2005 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.15 of 2005 on the file of District Judge, Karimnagar. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
______________ M.LAXMAN, J Date: 23.01.2023 GVR/TU