UOI vs A.R. Khanna and Sons

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in C.S.(OS) No. 42-A/1998 which arose out of the proceedings for making an arbitral award the Rule of the Court. The claimant/contractor had filed objections to the Award, made by the Arbitrator on 22.08.1997 in respect of dispute which arose on account of works awarded to the claimant, on 07.11.1998. Learned Arbitrator i.e. Justice D.R.Khanna (Retd.) considered all the claims and by the award, directed payment of Rs. 6,84,822/-.

The Contractor had relied upon various contentions urging that the Award was in gross error of law and contrary to the record. After considering and overruling almost all of them, the learned Single Judge admitted one contention i.e. in calculating the final amount, the learned Single Judge had ignored a sum of Rs. 1,25,487/-. He accordingly modified the Award and directed inclusion of that amount, so as to increase the final amount payable by the Appellant i.e. Union of India to Rs. 8,10,309/-.

It is urged on behalf of the Union of India that the learned Single Judge fell into error by adding a sum of Rs. 1,25,487/-. It is urged that a conjoint reading of the Award; (i.e. particularly paras 22 to 26) with paras 17 to 22 of the impugned judgment, reveal that the Arbitrator had in fact taken into consideration the sum of Rs. 1,25,487/- (which it was pointed out was a part of the final bill amount and was reflected to Rs. 1,07,063/- in the Award). It was emphasized that before the Arbitrator, five statements had been made and that all of these were considered while awarding the final amount and as a consequence, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to add any further amount much less than the amount of Rs. 1,25,487/-. On the other hand learned counsel for the Contractor/claimant urged that there is no manifest error in the learned Single Judge''s approach which calls for interference by the Division Bench in the appeal. It was argued that the learned Single Judge rejected most of the claims made on behalf of the Contractor and after due application of mind, directed the addition of Rs. 1,25,487/- purely on the ground that there was obvious error in the method of calculation.

This court recalls the role of the Court, in considering the petitions u/s 30 and 33 of the (now repealed) Arbitration Act 1940 and is of the view that the extent of power is extremely limited. It is not every error of fact or law which can be revisited by the court; only those which are apparent on the face of the record or are egregious and obvious, can be taken into consideration and cured. In this case, after a complete and exhaustive analysis of the record (which included appreciation of the statements of the claimant) the learned Single Judge had concluded that the Arbitrator omitted to include the sum of Rs. 1,25,487/- which was reflected in the final bill and statement (as is evident from para 16 of the judgment). Having regard to the extremely narrow and limited appellate reviews which is in a sense twice removed from the power of the court to re-appreciate the findings of the Award we are unpersuaded that the view or opinion taken by the learned Single judge is of such a character that calls for an interference. Even a second opinion, in this regard, is not called for. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that this appeal has to fail. It is accordingly dismissed.