Judgment:
L.N. Mittal, J.
1. This is revision petition by Union of India having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Respondent-Contractor M/s Bawa Jasbir Singh executed some work of the petitioner-Union of India. Disputes arose between the parties. The said disputes were referred to Arbitrator. The Arbitrator made his award dated 18.5.1993 awarding various amounts to the Contractor against different claims made by the Contractor. The Contractor filed application under Section 14(2) and Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short - 'the Act') for directing the Arbitrator to file the award and for making award as rule of the Court. The petitioner filed objections under Section 30 of the Act against the award of the Arbitrator.
2. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh vide judgment dated 16.3.2001 dismissed the objections of the petitioner-herein and made the award of the Arbitrator as rule of the Court. Appeal preferred by the petitioner stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 3.6.2002. Feeling still aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred by Union of India.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner challenged the amounts awarded by the Arbitrator under claim Nos. 5, 7 and 22 of the Contract.
Under claim No. 5, the Arbitrator allowed Rs. 7181.71ps. for increase in the number of bricks used in the septic tank. This claim is alleged to be factually incorrect because vide deviation order No. 21 dated 31.8.2005, cost of these bricks had been paid to the Contractor. This objection of the petitioner cannot be entertained as it relates to disputed question of fact. The finding of the Arbitrator cannot be set aside by Court on disputed question of fact.
4. Under claim No. 7, the Contractor raised claim of Rs. 25,000/- for increase in the price of bricks. The Contractor revised his claim to Rs. 53,980/-. The Arbitrator has awarded Rs. 43,726.50ps. The petitioner alleged that increase in price of bricks took place on 16.9.1983 and by then 6,18,000 bricks had already been utilized and thereafter only 2,90,000 bricks were purchased by the Contractor. However, award of the Arbitrator is non speaking and, therefore, it cannot be discerned therefrom as to for how many bricks claim of the Contractor has been allowed. Consequently, this objection of the petitioner also cannot be accepted.
5. Under claim 22, the Contractor claimed Rs. 1,87,015/- on account of increase in price of diesel and petrol. The Arbitrator allowed Rs. 86,884/- against this claim of the Contractor. The objection of the petitioner is that diesel and petrol were not incorporated in the Contract but still the claim has been allowed. However, this objection relates to factual controversy, which cannot be gone into by the Court. The award of the Arbitrator on this aspect cannot be set aside on this ground.
6. Last objection of the petitioner relates to claim No. 10. The Contractor claimed Rs. 3,50,000/- as damages for delay in execution of the work. The Contractor revised the claim to Rs. 3,93,117/-. The Arbitrator has allowed Rs. 1,12,000/- to the Contractor against this claim. The contention of the petitioner is that the Arbitrator has committed legal misconduct in allowing this claim because clause 11(C) of the Contract specifically provides that no claim in respect of compensation or otherwise, howsoever arising,. as a result of extension granted under conditions (A) and (6) shall be admitted.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in view of specific clause 11(C) in the Contract, the Arbitrator could not have allowed Rs. 1,12,000/- as damages or compensation to the Contractor for delay/extension in the execution of the work. It was also contended that the Contractor was granted extension twice on his own request without any financial implication and the Contractor accepted the same. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramnath International Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. : A.I.R. 2007 Supreme Court 509 and also on a judgment of this Court in the case of Chaudhary Construction Company v. Union of India and Ors. Civil Revision No. 2728 of 1995 decided on 21.5.2007 wherein certain other judgments namely Jaswant Singh v. Union of India and Ors. C.R. No. 4064 of 2001, decided on 04.10.2002, Union of India v. Harbhajan Singh : (2007-1)145 Punjab Law Reporter 299, Union of India v. Om Construction Company : (1997-2)116 P.L.R. 92 were also referred to. In all these judgments, same clause 11(C) of the Contract was interpreted and award of the Arbitrator regarding grant of compensation on account of prolongation of the Contract was set aside being in violation of the aforesaid clause and thereby the Arbitrator was held to have committed legal misconduct in granting the said claim of the Contractor.
8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-Contractor contended that since the award is non speaking, the Court cannot go into mental process of the Arbitrator in granting the disputed claim of the Contractor. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Sabboo Mal and Sons and Anr. : (2003-2)134 P.L.R. 541. Learned Counsel for the respondent also contended that scope for interference in the case of non-speaking award is very limited. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karam Singh Lal v. Union of India and Ors. 2002(1) Arb.L.R. 224 (SC) wherein also similar clause 11 of the Contract was interpreted.
9. Learned Counsel for the respondent also argued that scope for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satna Stone & Lime Co. Ltd., M.P. v. Union of India and Anr. etc. 2008(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 226 wherein it was held that scope of the interference by Court in award given by the Arbitrator is limited. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sutlej Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab 2001(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 151 wherein it was observed that Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot give its own interpretation to the terms and conditions of the Contract but can correct only jurisdictional error committed by the Arbitrator.
10. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner cited judgment of this Court in the case of AKM Constructions & Engg. Company v. Commander Works Engineer 2007(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 86 wherein it was observed that even if it is non speaking award, if the claims awarded by the Arbitrator are contrary to the terms of the Contract on the face of the record, the Court is not precluded from interfering with such an award. The contention that it is not open to the Court to attempt to probe into the mental process of the Arbitrator where the award is non speaking will not apply in such a case.
11. I have very carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the parties.
12. Clause 11(C) of the Contract is very clear and categorical. It provides that no compensation whatsoever shall be admissible to the Contractor as a result of extension of time granted for execution of the Contract. In view of the plain and unambiguous language of the clause, the Arbitrator could not have granted amount of Rs. 1,12,000/- to the Contractor under this head. The Arbitrator by doing so has committed legal misconduct and, therefore, award of the Arbitrator is prone to interference by this Court. This conclusion is strengthened by latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramnath International Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and other judgments referred to hereinabove.
13. No doubt, scope of interference by Court in the award of the Arbitrator is very limited. There is also no doubt that scope of interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is also limited. However, when there is jurisdictional error by the Arbitrator or there is legal misconduct, Court can always interfere with the award under Section 30 of the Act and even this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction can interfere with the award of the Arbitrator in such a situation. In the instant case, the Arbitrator committed legal misconduct by awarding amount of Rs. l,12,000/- to the Contractor under the aforesaid head, which could not have been awarded at all in view of categorical provision in the Contract. Award of the said amount being contrary to the express condition of the Contract contained in clause 11(C) thereof, the Court not only has jurisdiction but also owes a duty to interfere with the award of the Arbitrator to the extent of the said amount.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed partly and impugned judgments of both the Courts below are modified to the extent that the respondent-Contractor shall not be entitled to the amount of Rs. 1,12,000/- awarded by the Arbitrator as damages/compensation for extension of time in the execution of the Contract whereas judgments of the Courts below in respect of the other amounts awarded by the Arbitrator are upheld.