M.S. Rana vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 312 Del

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The appeal is directed against an order dated 20th November, 1981 passed by the learned Sub-Judge First Class in Suit No. 344/79.

2. Certain disputes arose between the parties and the appellant raised certain claims. It appears that a learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajender Sachar) was pleased to direct the Chief Engineer of PWD to appoint an Arbitrator in accordance with Clause 25 of the contract between the parties. Mr. V.V. Vaze was appointed as the sole Arbitrator and he entered into the reference on 17th July, 1972. He subsequently resigned as the sole Arbitrator and in his place Kumari K.P. Sarojini was appointed as the sole Arbitrator. She, however, resigned as the sole Arbitrator on 21st September, 1977 and thereafter Mr. N.C. Gupta was appointed as the sole Arbitrator on 20th April, 1978.

3. It is submitted that Mr. Gupta unfortunately did not consider the claims of the appellant, but instead took the respondent as the claimant and proceeded to pass the Award. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that this was brought to the notice of the learned Arbitrator on 20th October, 1978 that the appellant was in fact the claimant, but this was not taken note of and an Award was passed on 30th October, 1978.

4. The appellant has since filed objections against the Award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, which are said to be pending in the District Court. Learned counsel says that one of the objections he has taken is that his claims have not been referred to, dealt with and considered by the sole Arbitrator Mr. Gupta. If this is so it is always open to the appellant to challenge the Award on this basis also and if the appellant succeeds in showing that he had claims which ought to have been dealt with by the sole Arbitrator, the learned Judge hearing the objection petition can always refer the disputes to the Arbitrator.

5. Under the circumstances, no further orders are required to be passed in this appeal. The appellant is entitled to press his objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act before the learned Trial Court. If the appellant is able to satisfy the learned Trial Court that the claims of the appellant have not been referred to, dealt with or considered by the learned Arbitrator, it will be open for the learned Trial Judge to refer the claims to the Arbitrator. Since the objections are pending for long time, the learned Trial Judge should endeavor to take a decision on the objections expeditiously.

6. The appeal stands disposed of.