The Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board vs Chetan Ram Ram Gopal

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J—The appellant-Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board has filed the aforesaid three Misc. Appeals aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.05.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, No. 1, Bikaner in Civil Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 222/1999 (& Civil Original Suit No. 224/1999) by which, the learned Court below made the Arbitration Award dated 20.05.1998 ''Rule of the Court'' under the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940.

The dispute arose between the parties since the contractor - M/s. Chetan Ram Ram Gopal, Bikaner was given a contract by the appellant - Marketing Board to construct some shops and godowns at Bikaner in the year 1982 which was duly executed and the work was completed by the contractor but at the time of payment of the final bill, certain deductions were made by the appellant-Board and, therefore, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator, who by his Award dated 20.05.1998 awarded a sum of Rs. 1,09,623.46 along with interest @ 18% per annum with effect from 20.04.1989.

The learned counsel Mr. S.K. Vyas appearing for the appellant-Marketing Board submitted that the objections raised by the Marketing Board before the learned Arbitrator have not been considered and, therefore, the learned Arbitrator had committed misconduct in the proceedings of arbitration and, accordingly, the said impugned Arbitral Award dated 20.05.1998 did not deserves to be made the Rule of the Court.

Repelling the objections raised by the appellant-Marketing Board, the learned Court below has made the Award dated 20.05.1998 ''Rule of the Court'' with the following findings and observations:--

The learned counsel Mr. Bheemkant Vyas appearing for the respondent-contractor urged that there was no misconduct by the learned Arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings and the learned Court below was justified in making the Award dated 22.05.2000 ''Rule of the Court'' and has rightly awarded the sum of Rs. 73,665/- to the respondent-contractor for the work executed by it. However, the learned counsel fairly conceded that the rate of interest @ 18% can be reduced a little bit.

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the record of the case, including the reasons assigned by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Bikaner in the impugned order dated 22.05.2000 making the Award dated 22.05.1998 ''Rule of the Court, this Court is satisfied that there is no force in the present Misc. Appeals filed on behalf of the appellant-Marketing Board and the reasons assigned by the learned Court below for making the Award dated 20.05.1998 ''Rule of the Court'' appear to be just and proper. It is noticed that the objections raised by the appellant-Marketing Board before the learned Arbitrator have been duly discussed by the learned Arbitrator. It is also noticed from the perusal of even the pleadings much less evidence in support thereof that no case of bias or exceeding of the jurisdiction by the Arbitrator is made out in the present case, as no allegations of bias or exceeding of the jurisdiction have been levelled against the learned Arbitrator and, therefore, the present case does not fall within the ''mischief'' of Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the Award dated 20.05.1998 has rightly been made the ''Rule of the Court'' by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Bikaner by its judgment and order dated 22.05.2000.

This Court is of the opinion that there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 22.05.2000 except for the reduction of the admittedly higher rate of interest @ 18% to 9% per annum which is the present Bank rate of interest.

Accordingly and in view of the above, the present Misc. Appeals filed on behalf of the appellant-The Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board stand disposed of and, therefore, while upholding the impugned order dated 22.05.2000, the rate of interest awarded by the learned Arbitrator is reduced from 18% per annum to 9% per annum. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Bikaner and to the parties concerned forthwith.