TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (9) TMI 548
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20th August, 1964 for the purpose of construction of Obra Dam, Power House, structures and appurtenant works. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties as regard supply of extra quantity of earth and rock, the matter was referred to an arbitrator. 3. As far back as on 23-8-1972, the appellant herein invoked the arbitration agreement contained in clause 17 of the contract in connection with earthfill and rockfill which was recorded from 53rd running bill up to the 88th running bill. One Shri J.S. Pujji was appointed as an arbitrator by the appellant. As the respondent did not appoint any arbitrator the appellant requested the said arbitrator to proceed in the matter as a sole arbitrator whereupon he entered into a referen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for determination of disputes between the parties who was a retired Engineer-in-chief of the respondent herein awarded a sum of Rs. 7,29,764.00 in respect of the claim for extra quantity of earthfill and a sum of Rs. 8,74,256.00 in relation to its claim for rockfill. The appellant herein filed applications for making the said awards as rule of the Court. Respondent, however, filed objections thereto in terms of section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. By reason of an order dated 23-8-1995 the said applications of the respondent were allowed and the awards were set aside by the Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Mirzapur. The appellant herein preferred appeals thereagainst which were dismissed by the High Court inter alia on the ground that in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for a sum of Rs. 43,50,958.48 and Rs. 26,47,746.34; the learned Umpire awarded only a sum of Rs. 7,29,764.00 and Rs. 8,74,256.00 in its favour. 8. Mr. Subodh Markandeya, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the umpire was bound by the terms of the contract and could not have travelled beyond the same. The learned counsel would contend that before the Civil Judge, Mirzapur an affidavit was filed to the effect that the Department has not admitted any claim of the opposite party. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel has produced before us the affidavit of one Shri Uma Nath Misra filed in Case Nos. 91 of 1993 and 92 of 1993 in the Court of Civil Judge, Mirzapu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the documents which were filed by the parties before the Umpire as also decisions of the Allahabad High Court in (sic). The respondent did not raise any question as regard the said admission of part of the quantity of earthfill and rockfill before the Umpire. A vague statement was made that the claim of the appellant was not admitted while dealing with the question as to whether the award should have been a reasoned one or not. The submission that no such admission is made is not borne out from the records. On the other hand, such admission must have been made in view of the documents maintained by the respondent as otherwise the exact figure of earthfill or rockfill was not possible to be mentioned in the awards. 11. In view of the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry of the claims and awarded certain amount. He has not disclosed his mind indicating as to why he had done so or what was done. The Courts, therefore could not interfere with the award merely on ipse dixit. 17. In Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Government of Kerala [1989] 2 SCC 38 this Court has laid down the law in the following terms : ". . . But, in the instant case the Court had examined the different claims not to find out whether these claims where within the disputes referable to the arbitrator, but to find out whether in arriving at the decision, the arbitrator had acted correctly or incorrectly. This, in our opinion, the Court had no jurisdiction to do, namely, substitution of its own evaluation of the conclusion of law or fact to ....