1. Both these appeals have been filed by the appellant-Food Corporation of India against the judgment and decree dated 28-11-1998 passed in Special Civil Suit Nos.7 and 8 of 1995 respectively which have arisen from Arbitration Application Nos.216 of 1995 and 217 of 1995 whereby the learned civil court confirmed the award passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.
2. Heard learned Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel, Mr.Shakeel Qureshi for the appellant-Corporation. Though process is duly served on the respondent, nobody appears either personally or through advocate.
3. It is submitted by learned Counsel, Mr.Qureshi that learned arbitrator has not appreciated the evidence in true perspective and civil court has also not considered the same and by that, civil court has committed error in confirming the award passed by the learned arbitrator.
4. This Court has gone through the award. It is to be noted that each and every aspect has been discussed by the learned arbitrator and rightly passed the award. For rejecting the claim of the Government, the learned arbitrator has given detailed reasons and civil court after discussing the same has rightly dismissed the suits filed. Learned counsel for the appellant Corporation has failed to satisfy this Court that any legal error has been committed by civil court or the learned arbitrator in passing the award. There is also no jurisdictional error as having committed by the learned Arbitrator and it has been rightly confirmed by the civil court. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar Gupta and Company Vs. Union of India reported in (2010)1 Supreme Court Cases page 409 more particularly in para 8 as under:
“8. We are of the considered opinion that the High Court committed a serious error in re-appreciating the evidence led by the parties before the arbitrator. This evidence was duly scrutinized and evaluated by the arbitrator. With regard to claim No.5, the arbitrator has given elaborate reasons. Therefore, finding recorded by the arbitrator cannot said to be either perverse or based on no evidence. This conclusion has been erroneously substituted by the High Court with its own opinion on appreciation of the evidence. Such a course was not permissible to the High Court while examining objections to the award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.”
5. Hence, in view of the afore referred decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar Gupta (supra), the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence led before the arbitrator or the civil court. Both these appeals, therefore, do not merit any consideration and hence, both these appeals are dismissed. Notice is discharged.
6. Office shall place a copy of this judgment in each appeal.
[M.D.SHAH,J.] radhan