Madras High Court
Union Of India vs M/S.Vcc Enterprises on 10 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.785 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.6399 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.M.A.No.785 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.6399 of 2016
Union of India
rep. by Chief Engineer (R&D) Picket,
Secunderabad – 500 651. ...Respondent/1st respondent/Appellant
-V-
1.M/s.VCC Enterprises,
Chalam Niwas,
No.19, I Main Road,
Krishnapuram,
Thiruninravur,
Chennai – 602 024.
2.Brig.A.K. Wahi,
P.S. To D.D.G.W.(PPC & Estt.),
Sole Arbitrator,
Office of the Engineer-in-Chief's Branch,
IHQ of MOD (Army),
Kashmir House,
New Delhi – 110 011. ...Sole Arbitrator/2nd respondent/
2nd respondent
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.785 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.6399 of 2016
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 against the fair and decreetal order dated
07.09.2015 passed in Arb.O.P.No.82 of 2012 on the file of the learned
Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, reversing the Award dated
30.11.2011 passed in Contract Agreement No.CERD/AVD/17 of
2005-06 by the Sole Arbitrator Brig. A.K. Wahi.
For Appellant : Ms.Jagachithra
for Mr.Venkataswamy Babu
For Respondents : Mr.T.V.Lakshmanan for R1
Not ready in notice - R2
JUDGMENT
This Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, has been filed by Union of India represented by the
Chief Engineer (R&D) Picket, challenging the order passed by the
learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, setting aside an Award
passed in Ar.O.P.No.82 of 2012 by the 2nd respondent herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.785 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.6399 of 2016
2.The respondent has raised a claim against the appellant herein
with reference to disputes that had arisen between the two in respect
of a Contract for putting up Accommodation for Technical
Information Resources Centre at CVRDE, Avadi. The Work Order
was placed on 10.10.2005 by the appellant and the time for
completion was nine months commencing from 25.10.2005.
Thereafter, the date of commencement was revised retrospectively till
29.03.2006 and the date of completion was fixed as 28.12.2006.
However, it has been periodically extended and ultimately, the site
was handed over on 20.07.2009. By reason of the delay, the
respondent had come forward with a claim of Rs.3.85Crores under
various heads and the respondent made a counter claim towards cost
of references and defective works.
3.The 2nd respondent sole Arbitrator ultimately clubbed all the
claims, passed an Award dated 30.11.2011 and gave a consolidated
sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. The Arbitrator did not follow any formula for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.785 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.6399 of 2016
arriving at the said figure and give any reason for the same.
Therefore, the respondent has filed an application for setting aside the
Award under Section 34 of the Act by filing Ar.O.P.No.82 of 2012
before the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur.
4.The learned Principal District Judge by his order dated
07.09.2015 has allowed the petition and set aside the Award. The
learned Judge has observed that the conclusion of the Arbitrator did
not reflect the reasons upon which the Arbitrator has arrived at the
said conclusion. The learned Judge had also left open to the parties to
agitate their claim before the Arbitrator. It is challenging this order,
the appellant is before this Court.
5.The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that
the Arbitrator has gone into great details with reference to each of the
claim that had been raised by the appellant and therefore, it cannot be
said that the Award lacked reasoning. However, a perusal of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.785 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.6399 of 2016
Award would show that the 2nd respondent Arbitrator had not given
any reason for arriving at a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. The Award does
not reflect the basis on which the learned Arbitrator has arrived at the
above Award.
The order being a non speaking one is vitiated by patent
illegality and I therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the
order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur in
Arb.O.P.No.82 of 2012 and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands
dismissed.
10.02.2021
Internet : Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Speaking / Non-Speaking
mps
To
The Principal District Judge,
Thiruvallur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.785 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.6399 of 2016
P.T. ASHA. J,
mps
C.M.A.No.785 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.6399 of 2016
10.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
