Karnataka High Court
Sri B Vishnu Vardhana Rao vs The Chief Administrative Officer (Con) on 5 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5313-DB
RP No. 451 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
REVIEW PETITION NO. 451 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SHRI.B.VISHNU VARDHANA RAO,
S/O KASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCC. CONTRACTOR,
R/O 12-7-133/81/2,
RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR
OPP. HUDA TRUCK PARKING,
KUKKATPALLY, HYDERABAD-560 072.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.BAPAT SAMPATH VINAYAKA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by K G 1. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (CON),
RENUKAMBA SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
Location: High 18, MILLERS ROAD,
Court of
Karnataka BENGALURU-560 046.
2. M.RAMAHCHANDRAN IRAS,
FA AND CAO (CN),
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
18, MILLERS ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 046.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 SERVED AND UN-REPPRESENTED,
V/O DTD.17/12/2024, NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5313-DB
RP No. 451 of 2022
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W
ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN M.F.A. NO.40/2016(AA) ON THE FILE OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT AND REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED
08.04.2021 AND RESTORE M.F.A.NO.40/2016(AA) TO THE FILE
AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)
This is the Review Petition filed by the appellant
seeking review of the order passed by this Court on
08.04.2021 in MFA No.40/2016 under Section 37(1) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, challenging the
order dated 26.09.2015 passed by the learned X
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru,
dismissing the suit in A.S. No.104/2010, which was filed
under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, challenging the
award.
NC: 2025:KHC:5313-DB
2. The review has been filed on a limited ground
that, the Ground (J) of the appeal filed under Section 37 of
the Act of 1996 has been over-looked.
3. Suffice to state that, this Court in the aforesaid
order has in Paragraphs No.16 to 19, stated as under:
"16. The variation statement furnished by the
railways before the Arbitral Tribunal would disclose
that Rs.55,22,459.74 was the amount related to L2
K.V.S.Reddy whereas Rs.8311574.73 was the
amount related to L1 B.V.V.Rao. Accordingly, the
vitiation has been determined at 3115844.30. The
same has been deducted by the learned arbitrator.
Indisputedly, both the parties have not submitted
any arguments before the Trial Court. The grounds
urged before the Trial Court also do not reflect this
issue inasmuch as vitiation clause. However, the
learned counsel for the appellant made an endeavour
to contend that the ground at [J] would indicate the
challenge to the vitiation clause. The same is
excerpted hereunder for ready reference:
"J. The Arbitral Tribunal ought to
have taken into consideration the
contractual clauses governing the
variations of quantities. The Arbitral
Tribunal failed to consider the documents
NC: 2025:KHC:5313-DB
filed by the petitioner/claimant in respect
of claim No.1 and erroneously replied on
the oral submissions of the Railways
ignoring the factual aspects."
17. Clause 2.1 of the agreement for works
(Ex.C2) deals with variation in quantities. Clause 2.1
reads thus:
"2.1 The railway reserves the right
to alter the designs and drawings. If due
to change in drawing or design or any
other reasons, if there be any variations
[either increase or decrease in
quantities], payment will be made only
for the actual quantities executed at the
accepted rates. If there be sufficient
cause, the railway may grant extension
of the date of completion suitably. Such
circumstances, shall, in no way affect or
vitiate the contract or alter the character
thereof, or entitle the contractor to
damages or compensation therefore
except as provided for in this contract."
18. A reading of this agreement in the
background of the pleadings and in the absence of
any arguments adduced before the Trial Court on
this point, entertaining a new ground of challenge is
NC: 2025:KHC:5313-DB
not justifiable while exercising the power under
Section 37(1)(C) of the Act.
19. It is well settled principle that the scope of
judicial scrutiny and interference by the Court under
Section 37 of the Act is limited. An error relates to
interpretation of the contract by an arbitrator is an
error within the jurisdiction and such an error is not
amenable to correction by the Courts. Merely on the
reason that the arbitrator has reached a wrong
conclusion in interpreting the agreement, it is not
permissible to interfere with the conclusion of the
arbitrator, the same being plausible view of the
matter. As the court of appeal under Section 37 of
the Act, there is no scope for re-assigning or re-
appreciating the evidence. It is trite that an award
which is injudicious or vitiated by an apparently
untenable reasons, shocking the conscience of the
Court would be amenable to judicial review under
Section 37 of the Act. Mere attempt to reargue and
reinterpret the clauses of the agreement adjudicated
before the arbitral Tribunal, confirmed by the learned
Trial Judge, would not call for any interference on
the grounds now urged by the appellant before this
Court.
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal stands
dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:5313-DB
The amount deposited by the railways before the
Trial Court, if any, shall be disbursed to the
appellant."
4. Suffice to state, the conclusion of this Court is
also that, in the absence of any argument adduced before
the Trial Court on this point, no new ground of challenge
can be entertained while exercising the power under
Section 37 of the Act of 1996.
5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel
for the appellant did concede that, though the Ground (J)
was pleaded, but the same was not urged while arguing
the petition under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. We do
not agree with the said submission, because a reference to
ground (J) has been made in paragraph 16 of the order, of
which review is being sought.
6. Even otherwise, we do not see that the
conclusion drawn by this Court in Paragraphs 16 to 19
above is an error apparent on the face of the record for us
to continue with the Review Petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:5313-DB
7. The Review Petition being without merit is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
KGR*
