TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 1234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent Engineer-II, Northern Railway, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, Punjab, for additional washing line to accommodate 26 coaches at Jammu Tawi Railway Station. Disputes arose when the respondent terminated the contract vide letter dated 03rd April 1996 due to stated non-performance and repeated lapses by the appellant. The appellant, on the other hand, alleged breaches on the part of the respondent who, it is stated, had modified the original work and changed scope of the work several times. 3. The appellant invoked the arbitration clause as per the contract agreement and in response, the General Manager, Northern Railways satisfied with the existence of the disputes, appointed an arbitrator. The appellant approached the District Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also held that pre-reference and pendente lite interest could not have been awarded in terms of clause 16(2) of the General Conditions of the Contract. On the question whether the Court could remand the disputes to the Arbitrator, the impugned judgment holds that the court remand was impermissible, but the parties were at liberty to approach the arbitrator for fresh adjudication or avail any other remedy permitted by law, while stating that the period spent in the arbitration proceedings and the resultant litigation should be excluded in terms of Section 43(4) of the Act. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties, we find that the respondent was "unable to present his case", a valid ground and justification for setting aside an award under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings for one day. On 21st October 2010, the respondent filed affidavit of Mr. Abhay Kumar, Senior Divisional Engineer-II, Northern Railway, Ferozepur as well as an application for recall of costs. This application for waiver of costs was opposed and rejected. Since the cost was not paid, the affidavit by way of evidence, it was directed would not be taken on record. This order of 21st October 2010 also records that while the respondent had not paid the arbitration fee and expenses, the appellant had already paid Rs. 50,000/- towards arbitration fee and expenses. The arbitrator adjourned the matter to 9th November, 2010 for final arguments and an ex parte award dated 27th November 2010 was passed awarding an amount of Rs. 20,25,255/- alo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondent had filed written statement shortly after the appellant had filed the claim statement. The respondent was also deprived of reasonable and fair opportunity to cross-examine Paramdeep Singh (PW-1). The respondent had also moved an application for waiver of costs, which was rejected on 21st October 2010, albeit the arbitrator decided to continue the arbitration to proceed ex parte and adjourned the matter to 9th November 2010 for final arguments. As the evidence of the respondent by the way of affidavit was not taken on record, their contentions and evidence were not considered and thus debilitated the respondent from stating their case. Given the aforesaid factual position, there was violation of principles of natural justice and l....