Hon'ble Mahendra Dayal,J.
The instant First Appeal From Order arises out of the judgment and order dated 18.4.2013, passed by the District Judge, Lucknow in Regular Suit No. 29/11, whereby the learned District Judge while partly allowing the suit modified the award dated 12.5.2011, rendered by the Sole Arbitrator.
The facts in brief, are that the parties entered into an agreement according to which the respondent had to do certain work. The work order was issued on 16.2.2005 and the agreement was arrived at between the parties on 20.6.2006. As per the terms of the agreement the work was to be completed within six months. The total cost of the project was initially Rs. 7020574/- which was subsequently reduced to Rs. 6278177/-. The dispute between the parties arose when the respondent did not complete the work undertaken by him within the specified period and the respondent claimed the payment of certain amount for the work which he had done in pursuance of the agreement. As there was arbitration clause in the agreement, the respondent approached the Hon'ble High Court for appointment of Arbitrator and the Hon'ble the Chief Justice appointed the Sole Arbitrator.
The parties appeared before the Arbitrator and filed their respective pleadings and evidence. The learned Arbitrator after considering the material placed before him, pronounced the award on 12.5.2011 with the finding that the respondent was entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 1513174.50 from 12.5.2011 till the final payment of the award along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The respondent was also found entitled to recover from the appellant a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as cost of the arbitration proceedings and Rs. 49500/- as his share in the fee paid to the Arbitrator.
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award the appellants filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the award of the Sole Arbitrator dated 12.5.2011. The learned District Judge decided the objections whereby he modified the award to the extent that the respondent was not entitled for any interest. The rest part of the award was upheld by the learned District Judge.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned District Judge did not consider the fact that there was sufficient evidence on record to show that sufficient material was provided to the respondent to complete the work within the stipulated period but the respondent himself could not complete the work and several letters were issued to him indicating therein that sufficient material was available at the site but in spite of that the respondent did not complete the work in time. The respondent was therefore, himself to be blamed for not completing the work within time and the learned Sole Arbitrator as well as the learned District Judge failed to consider that the claim of the respondent was baseless, unjustified and unacceptable. The learned counsel for the appellants has also assailed the order dated 14.5.2010, passed by this Hon'ble Court appointing the Sole Arbitrator on the ground that the said order was passed exparte without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellants. It has also been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the interest and cost awarded by the Arbitrator was arbitrary and without any basis but the learned District Judge failed to consider this important aspect of the matter.
The learned counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, submitted that the learned District Judge has already modified the award and that part of the award by which the interest was allowed to be given to the respondent, has already been set aside. With regard to the payment of cost and other sum, the submission of the learned counsel is that the learned Arbitrator has recorded a clear finding that the respondent could not complete the work as sufficient material was not supplied to the respondent within time. It is also a submission on behalf of the respondent that the learned District Judge has rightly relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in which it has been held that the award of the Arbitrator is not open to scrutiny by the Court including Hon'ble High Court unless it is found that the award is agaisnt the evidence on record or there has been any misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator. The learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards the judgement rendered by the learned District Judge, in which the law laid down by the Honb'le Apex Court has been discussed by the learned District Judge. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RavindraKumar Gupta and Company v. Union of India, (2010) 1 SCC 409; has held that the Arbitrator is the final arbiter for the dispute between the parties and it is not open to challenge the award on the ground that the arbitrator has drawn his own conclusion or has failed to appreciate the facts. The Court can also not interfere in the award even if it finds that another view was possible on the basis of the evidence on record. The Honb'le Apex Court has further held that it may be possible that on the same evidence the Court may arrive at different conclusion than one arrived at by the Arbitrator but that by itself is no ground for setting aside the award.
With regard to the order passed by this Court appointing the Sole Arbitrator, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the order appointing the sole Arbitrator has attained the finality and cannot be looked into in the instant appeal.
We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the order of this Court appointing sole Arbitrator has become final and cannot be looked into at this stage while hearing this appeal. We also find that the learned District Judge while deciding the suit has already modified the ward by setting aside that portion of the award by which the respondent was found entitled to get interest at the rate of 9%per annum on the ground that in view of the settled law the interest cannot be awarded but the learned District Judge did not find any cogent reason to interfere in the remaining part of the award. We also do not find any sufficient ground for interference. The learned counsel has failed to indicate as to how the award or the judgement of the learned District Judge is against the evidence on record or the Sole Arbitrator has acted illegally or has committed any misconduct.
For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgement and as such the appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.8.2014 Muk