TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (5) TMI 884
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order in question. It is the say of the respondent that at the insistence of the Local councillor, the official of the appellant directed the respondent to put both the sign boards at Maharishi Balmiki Marg near E Block itself, resulting in change of location and even the RCC foundation made at the original place being wasted. Both these work orders are stated to have been executed. While the respondent was paid for the other work order, the payment was not made for the work order in question. The aforesaid gave rise to disputes between the parties and in view of the arbitration clause, an arbitration application no.409/2007 was filed on the original side of this court, and Mr. S.M. Chopra, Retired Additional District & Sessions Judge was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator, who made and published his award on 17.12.2008. 3. It may be noticed that the appellant failed to file any reply and even the defence of the appellant was struck out. Despite this, the claim of the respondent was rejected by the Arbitrator on the ground that in various communications addressed by the respondent, the reference to the contract was as per its original description and that prudence required that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to Rs. 2,93,081/- on account of work done and Rs. 7550/- as refund of earnest money. I may mention that the aforesaid two amounts are also reflected in the final bill contemporaneously prepared by the then officials of respondent-MCD." 7. Surprisingly, the impugned order dated 23.03.2010 is sought to be assailed in the present appeal though it is a consent order. Grievance made qua the same, is that, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the award as the parameters under section 34 of the said Act were not met. 8. We put a specific query to learned counsel for the appellant as to whether the appellant had moved the learned Single Judge that no consent was given, or that the consent was by any unauthorized person. The answer to both queries is in the negative. We also put to learned counsel for the appellant as to whether any action was taken against Mr. Kapil Kumar, Junior Engineer for wrongfully giving consent in court, to which also, the answer is in the negative i.e., no action was taken against Mr. Kapil Kumar, Junior Engineer. The order dated 23.03.2010, was passed in the presence of the counsel for the appellant apart from the presence of Juni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error. (Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhu Sudan Chowdhri V. Chandrabati Chowdhrain, AIR 1917 PC 30 : 42 IC 527). That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an appellate court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment. 5. In R v. Mellor [(1858) 7 Cox 454: 6 WR 322: 169 ER 1084] Martin, B. was reported to have said: "We must consider the statement of the learned Judge as absolute verity and we ought to take his statement precisely as a record and act on it in the same manner as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was obliged not to act and to decline to perform his statutory duties because his Ministers had become involved personally. For the interest of democratic Government and its functioning, the Governor must act in such a case on his own. Otherwise, he will become an instrument for serving the personal and selfish interest of his Ministers." We wish to say no more. As we said, we cannot and we will not embark upon an enquiry. We will go by the Judges' record." 11. What would be the approach of the Supreme Court vis-a-vis the High Court would equally apply to the approach adopted by us qua proceedings before the learned Single Judge. The appellant failed to approach the learned Single stating that the consent was wrongly recorded. It was never urged that the consent was wrongly given. It is not even a ground taken in the appeal. In such a situation, the appellant cannot be permitted to urge that we should once again look into the merits of the controversy despite consent order, specially, as it is based on a categorical concession arising from the fact that the work under the contract had been executed and the final bill prepared by the appellant qua the work, and the work havin....