1. First Appeal No.1325 of 1993 has been filed by the State against the judgment and decree dated 25-11-1992 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.591 of 1991 with Civil Misc. Appeal No.700 of 1991 whereby the learned civil court allowed the Civil Misc.Appeal No.591 of 1991. First Appeal No.1326 of 1993 has also been filed By the State against the judgment and decree dated 25-11-1992 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.591 of 1991 with Civil Misc. Appeal No.700 of 1991 whereby the learned civil court rejected Civil Misc.Appeal No.700 of 1991 filed by the State and confirmed the award passed by the leaned Sole Arbitrator dated 14-8-1991.
2. Heard learned AGP, Mr.P.P.Banaji for the appellant-State and learned counsel, Mr.A.J.Patel for the respondent.
3. It is submitted by learned AGP, Mr.Banaji 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. He has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court page 777.
4. Learned counsel, Mr.A.J.Patel took this Court through the award. It is submitted 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 Misc. Civil Application filed by the respondent against the award passed by the learned arbitrator. In this connection, he has relied on a decision of the 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 and submitted that reappreciation of evidence is not permissible and hence, the order passed by the civil court is not required to be interfered with.
5. This Court has gone through the award. Learned AGP has failed to satisfy this Court that any legal error is committed by civil court or the learned arbitrator in passing the award. There is no jurisdictional error as having committed by the learned Arbitrator and it has been rightly confirmed by the civil court. It has been held in para 8 of the decision rendered in Ravindra Kumar Gupta (Supra) 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.”
As regards the decision relied on by learned AGP on AIR 1989 SC page 777 is concerned, I am of the opinion that same also cannot be sustained in view of the observations made in para 14 of the said decision itself which reads as under:
“The court cannot sit in appeal over the views of the arbitrator by re-examining and re-assessing the materials. The scope for setting aside an award is limited to the grounds available under the Arbitration Act, which have been well defined by a long line of decided cases, and none of them is available here. For this reason the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court has to be set aside.”
6. Hence, in view of the recent decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar Gupta (supra), the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence led before the arbitrator. Both these appeals, therefore, do not merit any consideration and hence, both these appeals are dismissed.
7. Office shall place a copy of this judgment in each appeal.
radhan [M.D.SHAH,J.]