Madhya Pradesh High Court
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs M/S Tirupathi Contstruc. & Anr on 6 May, 2024
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 2675 of 2004
BETWEEN:-
SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD., SEEPAT ROAD,
BILASPUR THROUGH : GENERAL MANAGER, SECL,
JOHILLA AREA, PO NOWROZABAD, DISTRICT UMARIA
(MADHYA PRADESH).
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ANOOP NAIR - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS. RITIKA
CHOUHAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. M/S TIRUPATHI CONSTRUCTION, PO BURHAR,
DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRI T. PRASAD, SOLE ARBITRATOR EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR (S & R) (RETD) SECL, NEW
BARGANDA, K.C. DEY ROAD, GIRIDIH
(JHARKHAND) PIN 875301.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHREYASH DHARMADHIKARI - ADVOCATE AND SHRI
TEERTHESH BHARILYA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Appellant has filed this miscellaneous appeal under Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against award dated 23.07.2004 passed
by District Judge, Shahdol in Arbitration Case No. 3/2004.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
award is assailed on two counts; (1) no reasoning has been given for passing of
award and (2) counter claim which was made by appellant was not considered
and decided. Arbitrator held that since there was no reference of counter claim,
therefore, same cannot be decided. He placed reliance on judgments of Apex
Court reported in (2024) 2 SCC 375, Batliboi Environmental Engineers
Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and (2012) 12 SCC 581,
State of Goa v. Praveen Enterprises.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submitted that out of
many claims, which were made by respondent No.1, in claim No.1 no reasoning
has been given. It is submitted that an interim order was passed on 31.03.2005
and it was held that claim made under claim No. 1 is undisputed. Since there
was no dispute in respect of claim No.1, therefore, no reason has been given
for allowing the said claim. It is further submitted that as far as claims No. 2, 3,
4, 6 and 7 are concerned, reasoning has been given by the Arbitrator. He read
over claim No. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. Counsel for the respondent No.1 also submitted written arguments.
Same is taken on record.
6. On going through the findings and award, it is found that reasoning has
been given by the Arbitrator for allowing said claims. Counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1 also took this Court to counter claims. On going through
counter claim No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, it is found that one of the reason
for dismissing the counter claim is that no reference has been given but that was
only one of the reason for allowing counter claim. Other reasons were also
assigned by the Arbitrator for not allowing the counter claim. Therefore, it
cannot be said that counter claim was rejected only on the ground that there was
no reference to adjudicate counter claim. Arbitrator has considered the counter
claim and has given reasons for not allowing counter claim apart from reason
that no reference has been made.
7. In view of same, award passed by Arbitrator cannot be held to be bad
in law because of devoid of reasons and non consideration of counter claim.
Miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
vkt
