AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Babu, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of appellants. He submits, State had entered into contract with
respondent. As per the contract and pursuant to request made by respondent, there was closure and settlement of final bill. It is only thereafter that
the contractor raised dispute and invoked the contract clause regarding appointment of adjudicator. The contractor then invoked the arbitration clause.
The arbitrator awarded on extra items, outside scope of the contract. As such this was not appreciated by the learned District Judge in dealing with
the petition made under section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The award ought to have been set aside and should be set aside in appeal.
Mr. Dwibedi, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent contractor. He submits, supplementary agreements were entered into, which
enlarged scope of the contract to include the six claims that were discussed by the learned Judge in impugned judgment. All claims were not awarded
in favour of his client. There is no defect in the award as can be said to be one, which comes within section 34. The appeal should be dismissed.
Appellants/State will be heard in reply on Thursday i.e. 6th January, 2022.
List on 13th January, 2022.
……………………………………..