Supreme Court upholds arbitration award in construction contract dispute.

The Supreme Court overturned the Deputy Commissioner's decision to set aside an arbitration award involving a construction contract. The Court found that the arbitrator did not violate natural justice or exceed jurisdiction, and the misconduct allegations were baseless. The High Court's failure to address jurisdiction and limitation issues was noted, with the Supreme Court ruling that the arbitrator's decision fell within the contract's scope. The limitation defense raised by the Union was rejected, and the appellants' claim was deemed valid, leading to the appeal being allowed with costs awarded to the appellants.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of the arbitration award set aside by the Deputy Commissioner.
2. Allegations of misconduct by the arbitrator.
3. Exceeding jurisdiction by the arbitrator in making the award.
4. Bar of limitation to the claim of the appellants.

Analysis:
1. The Union of India challenged an arbitration award related to a construction contract. The Deputy Commissioner set aside the award citing violation of natural justice, exceeding jurisdiction, and limitation bar. The High Court concurred on the natural justice violation but did not address the jurisdiction or limitation issues.

2. The Supreme Court found the Deputy Commissioner's judgment unsound. The arbitrator had given ample time for submissions and did not act unjustly. Misconduct allegations were unfounded, as the arbitrator followed fair practices. The High Court erred in dismissing the misconduct claim as a factual issue, as the reasons cited were irrelevant.

3. The High Court failed to rule on the jurisdictional aspect of the arbitrator's award. The appellants' claim included various amounts, with one component deemed unjustifiable. However, the arbitrator's decision was within the contract's arbitration scope, allowing for interest claims, making the award valid.

4. The High Court overlooked the limitation defense raised by the Union. The Arbitration Act's limitation provisions were deemed applicable, and the claim was found not time-barred. The Court noted the lack of objections earlier in the process and upheld the claim's validity. The appeal was allowed, with costs awarded to the appellants.

---