(Through Video Conferencing ... vs Choudhury Natabar Sahoo (Dead)
2022 Latest Caselaw 3274 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                   ARBA No.8 of 2002
                            (Through video conferencing mode)
            State of Odisha and another                  ...                   Appellants
                                                       Mr. Sailaja Nanda Das, Advocate
                                                               (Addl. Standing Counsel)
                                                  -versus-

            Choudhury Natabar Sahoo (Dead)               ...                   Respondents
            and others


                                                        Mr. S. P. Mishra, Senior Advocate

                          CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                            ORDER

Order No.                                  14.07.2022

  32.       1.         Mr. Das learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel

appears on behalf of appellants. He submits, the appeal is against

impugned judgment, whereby challenge under section 30 made by

petition under section 33 in Arbitration Act, 1940 stood

rejected/dismissed. Five claims were allowed. In allowing them the

arbitrator miss-conducted himself and the proceedings.

2. He submits, first awarded claim no.15 was for escalation. It

was allowed in respect of the contract providing for rates as given in

the 1964 schedule rates. It is irrelevant that some part of the work

continued after coming into force of the 1972 schedule of rates since

the arbitrator could not have gone beyond four corners of the contract.

He relies on order dated 1st December, 2021 in Civil Appeal no.7738

// 2 //

of 2021 (Pranab Jyoti Das Vs. The General Manager), wherein the

Supreme Court did not interfere with the High Court having declined

claim for higher rates based on a subsequent schedule of rates having

come into effect. Furthermore, the tribunal went on to allow refund of

security deposit simply because his client did not raise counter claim.

3. Mr. Das prays for adjournment to conclude his argument on

next date. Mr. Mishra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of

respondents.

4. List on 21st July, 2022.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Prasant