Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

State Of U P And Another vs M/S Gaur Construction

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|31 May, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 3
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 767 of 1991 Appellant :- State Of U.P.And Another Respondent :- M/S Gaur Construction Company Counsel for Appellant :- A.P. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Ajit Kumar
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the State of U.P. challenges the judgment passed by Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahar, who rejected the objections raised by the State against the arbitral award.
3. The arbitration award was made the Rule of the Court by the Court below. The judgment is based on sound principles of law enunciated in Union of India Vs. Sonia Construction Co., 1989 Alla.
L. J. 208 and while going by the judgment, can it be said that the Arbitrator has committed any of the irregularities which can be ground for upturning the arbitral award. The decision of the Apex Court in catena of decisions and more particularly the judgment of this Court decided by the under signed in First Appeal From Order No. 714 of 2005 wherein in paragraph 23 it is held as follows:
"23. (I) Steel Authority of India Ltd Vs. Gupta Brothers Steel Tubes Ltd. (2009) 10 SCC 63.
"...... The courts below have currently held that the arbitrator has gone into the issues of facts thoroughly, applied his mind to the pleadings, evidence before him and the terms of the contract and then passed duly considered award and no ground for setting aside the award within the four corners of Section 30 has been made out......... In what we have already discussed above, the view of the arbitrator in this regard is a possible view. Consequently, appeal has no merit and costs."
(ii) Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd Vs. Oil & Natural Gas Commission of India (2010) 11 SCC 296 ".... award was not only a plausible one but a well reasoned award. In the circumstance the interference by the High Court was not called for. In that view of the matter we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, as well as that of the Division Bench "
(ii) Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. Vs. M/s Dewan Chand Ram Saran reported as 2012 (5) SCC 306 " There was no reason for the High Court to interfere in the view taken by the arbitrator which was based, in any case on a possible interpretation of clause 9.3. The learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench clearly erred in interfering with the award rendered by the arbitrator. Both those judgments will, therefore, have to be set-aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgments of the learned Single Judge as well as of the Division Bench, are hereby set aside "
(iii) Reported as 2011 (5) SCC 758, in the case of J.G. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs./ Union of India & Anr.
(iv) First Appeal No.137 of 1992, in the case of State of Gujarat & Anr. Vs. Nitin Construction Company, judgment dated 22.03.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat.
(v) First Appeal No.3688 of 2012, in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Vijay Mistri Construction & Anr., judgment dated 22.03.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat.
(vi) Reported as 2000 (4) GLR 3652 in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited V/s. Essar Steel Limited, (Paragraph-8).
(vii) Reported in 1999(9)SCC 449, Arosan Enterprises Limited V/s. Union of India & Anr.
(vii) Reported in 2003 (8) SCC 4, Continental Construction Limited V/s. State of U.P., Assam State Electricity Board V. Buildworth (P) Ltd., AIR 2017 ,Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board V. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd., 1989 (1) SCC 532: Irrigation Department, State Of Orissa V. G.C. Roy, 1992 1 SCC 508 : Jugal Kishore Prabhatilal Sharma V. Vijayendra Prabhatilal Sharma, AIR 1993 SC 864 and Smt. Aruna Kumari V. Government Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 873."
4. The finding of fact given by the arbitrator as confirmed by the concerned Court will not permit this Court to interfere with the findings of the Arbitrator or the Court below. Hence, the arbitral award cannot be upset.
5. Hence, this appeal fails and is dismissed. Interim relief granted shall stand vacated forthwith.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 DKS
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

State Of U P And Another vs M/S Gaur Construction

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
31 May, 2019
Judges
  • Kaushal Jayendra
Advocates
  • A P Singh