DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION vs M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

This is an application for setting aside of an award dated 5th April, 2017 by which the learned Arbitrator has allowed the claim of the respondent/claimant for a sum of Rs.3,48,89,763/-. Although several grounds have been taken in the application for setting aside of the award but the learned Advocate representing the petitioner in all fairness has submitted that the petitioner would challenge the award on two fold grounds, namely, the learned Arbitrator has allowed the claim of the petitioner for a sum of Rs.3 crores in respect of the outstanding bills without looking into the documents by which the petitioner asked the respondentclaimant to furnish proof of payments; and that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.30 lakhs towards the provident fund dues on behalf of the claimant who had worked for the project and this fact has been overlooked by the arbitrator.

The learned Advocate for the Ircon submitted that provident fund has been proportionately deducted and there was no contemporaneous challenge to any of the bills raised by the claimant for the works done and completed.

Before dealing with the submission on the larger issue as to whether the Arbitrator has committed any mistake and/or error which is subject to judicial review, I embark upon an inquiry with regard to payment on account of provident fund dues. It appears that because of failure on the part of Ircon to make payment of employees provident fund and its allied dues for a sum of Rs.30,51,568/- for the period 3/99 to 1/04, a notice was issued to DVC attaching the aforesaid sum out of the amounts payable by the DVC to Ircon. The learned Arbitrator appears to have overlooked the letter dated 26th July, 2012 by which a sum of Rs.30,51,568/- has been paid by DVC in discharge of liability of Ircon. Accordingly, the DVC is entitled to a deduction of Rs.30,51,568/- from the amount awarded by the learned Arbitrator.

On the larger issue as to whether the Arbitrator has gone wrong in allowing the claim on account of unpaid bills, this Court reminding itself to the limited jurisdiction that the Court exercises and having regard to the catena of decisions on this point which clearly says that the Court is not scrutinising an award with an eagle''s eye or exercising appellate jurisdiction over an award passed by an Arbitrator, I find no reason to interfere with the conclusion reached by the Arbitrator in rejecting the objection raised by the DVC with regard to the unpaid bills. It is an admitted position that there was no contemporaneous evidence produced before the Arbitrator between the time when the bills were raised for the work done and completed and demand made that the work executed was defective either was inferior or that Ircon had failed to fulfil its obligation. DVC has never felt it necessary to inspect and/or verify the bills raised between 1997 and 2004. DVC cannot on its sweet-will almost after 7 or 8 years dispute the bills and the Arbitrator, in my view, in his reasoning, which could be found at internal page 11 of the award, has rightly decided the matter in favour of the claimant and against the respondent. A possible and plausible view of the Arbitrator cannot be interfered with in this limited jurisdiction.

Under such circumstances, the application is allowed in part. The final award gets reduced by Rs.30,51,568/-. The rest of the award remains. The award is modified to the aforesaid extent. AP No.519 of 2017 is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.