Union Of India vs M/S. Mohata Construction Co
2022 Latest Caselaw 3568 Kant

                           -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                       PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                          AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

               M.F.A.No.7609/2018 (AA)

BETWEEN:

UNION OF INDIA
REP BY CHIEF ENGINEER (AF)
MILITARY ENGINEER,
NO.2, DC AREA, MES ROAD,
YESHWANTHPURA POST,
BENGALURU-560 022
MR.ABHINAV RANA, IDSE EE GE (AF)
SAMBRA.
                                          ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI UNNIKRISHNANA M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     M/S. MOHATA CONSTRUCTION CO.,
       A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
       HAVIANG ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
       NO.25, SADUL GANJ,
       REGIONAL OFFICE AT NO.63,
       N.PARK DUGAR, MOUNT POONAMALLE ROAD,
       RAMAVARAM, CHENNAI-600 089
       REP BY ITS GENERAL POWER OF
       ATTORNEY HOLDER

       SRI.SANDEEP MOHATA,
       S/O RAMAN LAL MOHATA,
       AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
       R/O FLAT NO.12084,
       PRESTIGE WELLINGTON PARK,
       NO.1 & 2, IAF MAIN ROAD,
       GANGAMMA CIRCLE, JALAHALLI EAST,
       BENGALURU-560 030.
                                 -2-
2.    SRI KUKKAJE RAMAKRISHNA BHAT
      RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE,
      SOLE ARBITRATOR,
      ARBITRATOR CENTRE,
      HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      (DOMESTIC & INTERNATIONAL),
      BENGALURU-560 001.
                                                  ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1
    V/O DATED 12/12/2018, NOTICE TO R-2 IS
    DISPENSED WITH)
                           ---
      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37 (1) (C) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 02.04.2018 PASSED IN A.S.NO.174/2016, ON
THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (C.C.H.NO.7) DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED
UNDER SECTION 34 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT
1996 AND ETC.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS                          DAY,
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                             JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the impugned

judgment and order dated 02.04.2018 passed in

A.S.No.174/2016 by the XXII Additional City Civil Judge,

Bengaluru, whereby, the said suit filed by the appellant

under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 (for short 'the said Act of 1996') was dismissed by the

trial court.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are

that the respondent No.1 is a partnership firm carrying on

business as Engineers and contractors. Pursuant to a

contract entered into between the appellant - Union of

India and respondent No.1 in 2009 containing an

Arbitration Agreement, the respondent No.1 initiated

arbitration proceedings in A.C.No.94/2015 before the sole

Arbitrator putting forth various monetary claims against the

appellant. The said arbitration proceedings having been

contested by the appellant herein, the arbitral tribunal

allowed the claim of the respondent No.1 in part thereby

directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.19,72,453.36/-

and Rs.2,75,000/- together with interest at 18% p.a. in

favour of the respondent No.1.

Aggrieved by the arbitral award, the appellant filed

the aforesaid A.S.No.174/2016 under Section 34(3) of the

said Act of 1996 seeking setting aside the arbitral award.

The said suit was contested by the respondent No.1 before

the trial court. By the impugned judgment and order, the

trial court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant,

aggrieved by which, the appellant is before this Court by

way of the present appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and

learned counsel respondent No.1 and perused the material

on record.

4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions

urged in the appeal and referring to the material on record,

learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

impugned order passed by the trial court is contrary to the

material on record; that the respondent No.1 - claimant

was not entitled to put forth any monetary claim against

the appellant; that the impugned arbitral award is beyond

the scope of arbitration proceedings; the various monetary

claims put forth by the respondent No.1 are not

substantiated by legal and acceptable evidence; that both

the arbitral tribunal as well as the trial court has failed to

consider and appreciate the material on record, which

would falsify the claim put forth by the respondent no.1;

that the arbitral tribunal committed an error in awarding

interest in favour of the respondent no.1. It is therefore

contended that the impugned judgment and award passed

by the arbitrator as well as the trial court are perverse and

arbitrary and the same deserve to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in

addition to supporting the impugned arbitral award as well

as the judgment passed by the trial court submits that

there is no merit in the appeal and that the same is liable to

be dismissed.

6. We have given our anxious consideration to the

rival submissions and perused the material on record.

7. A perusal of the arbitral award and the material on

record placed before the tribunal by both sides will clearly

indicate that the tribunal has carefully, correctly and

properly considered and appreciated the pleadings and

evidence of the parties and has recorded a categorical

finding of fact that respondent No.1 - claimant was partly

entitled to the monetary reliefs put forth by him. While

passing the impugned arbitral award, the tribunal has taken

into account the unimpeached and uncontroverted

pleadings and evidence of respondent No.1 as well as the

various admissions, discrepancies, inconsistencies and

contradictions in the pleadings and evidence of the

appellant, thereby coming to the conclusion that the

appellant was liable and due in the aforesaid sum to the

respondent No.1. Accordingly, the tribunal allowed the

claim of respondent No.1 in part.

8. Before the trial court, the appellant urged several

grounds for the purpose of assailing the arbitral award.

After considering the entire material on record including the

various contentions of the appellant, the trial court came to

the conclusion that all the grounds urged by the appellant

were in the realm of re-appreciation of the case on merits,

which was impermissible under Section 34 of the said Act of

1996; the trial court, after referring to the relevant case

law including the decisions of the Apex Court in relation to

scope and ambit of judicial review in a challenge under

Section 34 of the said Act of 1996 also came to the

conclusion that the impugned arbitral award did not suffer

from any patent illegality nor was the same in conflict with

the public policy of India or in contravention with the

fundamental policy of Indian law or in conflict with most

basic notions of morality or justice. Further, the trial court

also considered and appreciated the entire material on

record and came to the conclusion that the impugned

arbitral award was based on valid and cogent reasons which

did not warrant interference, particularly in view of the

limited and restricted scope of interference envisaged in

Section 34 of the said Act of 1996.

9. Upon perusal of the impugned arbitral award as

well as the impugned order passed by the trial court, we

are of the considered opinion that the same does not suffer

from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to

be perverse, capricious or arbitrary warranting interference

by this Court in the present appeal.

10. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the

appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

SD/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

SD/-

JUDGE

Srl.