High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Union Of India Thru' Dy. Chief Mechanical Engg.(M & P) D.L.W v. M/S Technical Associates & Others - CIVIL REVISION No. 280 of 2007  RD-AH 12298 (18 July 2007)
Civil Revision No. 280 of 2007
Union of India ... ... ... ......... Revisionist
M/s. Technical Associates and others ......... ......... ......... ..... Respondents
Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J
The facts as stated by the counsel for the applicant are that there was an agreement between the applicant Union of India and respondent no.1 M/s. Technical Associates for reconditioning of two cranes; that 70 % of the payment was made to respondent no.1 in advance and balance 30 % was to be made after satisfactory completion of work; that the respondent no.1 did not recondition one crane within time and therefore the second crane was not given for reconditioning and the agreement was cancelled and therefore the respondent no.1 was not entitled to any payment of balance 30 % and the dispute in this respect was referred to the sole arbitrator under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Arbitration Act'); that the sole arbitrator however gave his award for payment of the balance 30 % also in favour of respondent no.1; that the award was put into execution and an objection under Section 47 of CPC was filed by the applicant which has been dismissed by the executing court on the ground that the executing court cannot go behind the decree.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the arbitrator acted beyond jurisdiction in awarding the balance 30 % of the amount though the agreement had been cancelled and the second crane had not in fact been given to respondent no.1 for reconditioning as the work by respondent no.1 for reconditioning of the first crane was not done within the time allowed. The contention raised does not relate to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator but to the correctness of the award given by him. It is well settled that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. Therefore the view taken by the court below appears to be correct.
Counsel for the applicant relied upon para 25 of the decision of this Court in Union of India Vs. S.B. Singh [AIR 1988 Alld 225] regarding jurisdiction of the executing court. The case cited by the counsel for the petitioner does not help the petitioner as the question in the present case does not relate to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator but relates to correctness of the award. In this case cited the arbitrator had given thirty days time to the contractor to pay an instalment in a contract relating to supply of material when the contract was alive. After the award the Union of India cancelled the contract and the question arose whether the executing court could modify the time for payment of the instalment given in the award. It was held that the power of cancellation was contained in the contract and the executing court was entitled to decide under Section 47 CPC the rights and obligations of the parties after the contract had come to an end. This was not a case of the executing court going behind the decree. In the present case the dispute regarding the payment of the contractor for repair of the two cranes was itself referred to the arbitrator. The arbitrator held that the contractor was entitled to payment of the balance 30 % of the contract. There was no event after the award which may have affected the rights and obligations of the parties after the award which was the position in the case cited. The other case relied upon him is 1994 (4) SCC 370 Jaipur Development Authority Vs.Radhey Shyam and others. The question was whether the Land Acquisition Officer had power under any provision of the Act to award land in lieu of compensation. It was held that what is executable is only an award under Section 26 (2) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act , namely, the amount awarded or the claims of the interest determined of the respective persons in the acquired lands. Therefore the decree cannot incorporate any matter other than the matters determined under Section 11 or those referred to and determined under Section 18. It was held that the land acquisition officer has no power or jurisdiction to give any land under acquisition or any other land in lieu of compensation. This decision also does not help the petitioner. As I have already held alone that the issue which is being raised by the applicant relates to the correctness of the arbitration award and not to the arbitrator's jurisdiction. There is nothing to show that what was decided by the arbitrator was beyond the dispute referred to him. The order passed by the executing court does not suffer from any illegality which cay for interference. Dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.