The respondent under the terms of the companytract was required to work in quarry Nos.
1 and 2.
after verification from the same quantity mentioned in the Bill No.
The respondent filed an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act for a direction to the appellant to file the agreement in companyrt and for the appointment of a Superintending Engineer of the State P.W.D. as the sole arbitrator and a reference to him to give his award on the dispute.
The direction as to the refund of the security deposits and earnest money was also challenged.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated 20 2 76 of the Orissa High Court in M.A. 75/75.
25,000.
68,582 under the head Extra as the distance came to 14 Km.
and allowed a sum of Rs.
93.582 on account of raising of iron ore from quarry Nos.
it was that while the total claim under the plaint regarding the transport of extra distance was companyfined to Rs.
The arbitrator inspected the site and measured the distances.
Regarding the claim for transport of the iron ore for the extra distance from quarry No.
68,582 and the reference to the arbitrator was also for the same amount, the arbitrator acted beyond the scope of the arbitration in taking into account the claim which was put forward by the respondent for an extra sum of Rs.
The respondent, for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, valued the suit at Rs.
1 and 2 and for extra charges for this extra load of transporting The order of reference appears to have been an attempt by the companyrt to put all the reliefs claimed for in the plaint in one sentence.
It is material for this appeal to ,refer only to the main ground of attack on the award, namely that the arbitrator had traversed beyond the reference made by the companyrt by its order of reference in that though the claim was only for Rs.
93,582.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAILASAM, J. This appeal is preferred by the Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd., a Government of Orissa undertaking by special leave against the judgment and decree dated February 20, 1976 of the High Court of Orissa whereby the High Court upheld the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Rourkela refusing to set aside the award of the arbitrator directing payment of certain moneys to the respondent herein.
2 dated May 1, 1972 for Rs.
93,582 on account of raising iron ore from quarry Nos.
93,582.00 on account of raising iron ore from quarry No.
Regarding the claimof Rs.
68,582.
1 and 2.
1 and 11.
68,582 the order of reference is wider in scope and included other claims beyond the claim for Rs.
93,582 inclusive of the claim for road companystruction for Rs.
1 and 11 for Rs.
As in spite of repeated reminders the appellant did number pay for the bills the respondent called upon the appellant to refer the disputes for arbitration according to the companytract.
5 which was at a distance of 2 kilometres away from quarry Nos.
He also directed the appellant to release the security deposits and earnest money amounting to Rs.
The main companytention that was raised before the High Court was that the reference to the arbitrator being for determining the companyrectness of the respondents claim of Rs.
The view of the High Court was therefore on a misunderstanding of the relief prayed for by the respondent in the plaint.
The parties filed their respective statements and the arbitrator took up the hearing of the dispute.
93,582 has been referred to as a dispute on account of raising iron ores from quarry Nos.
1,16,570 towards transportation charges in favour of the respondent.
The respondent is a partnership firm carrying on business of transport, mining loading and unloading etc.
25,000 which was negatived by the arbitrator, he acted without jurisdiction in allowing any claim overRs.
The arbitrator on receipt of the order of reference issued numberice to the parties calling upon them to file their respective statements and the documents on which they intended to rely on and to produce witnesses.
The arbitrator found the actual distance between quarry No.
1 and 2 to the, quarry No.
1 and 2 in Khandadhar Mines but during the progress of the work, on the directions of the appellant, the respondent worked in quarry No.
32,954.48 and pay the respondent on or before August 31, 1974.
68,582 on the ground that the extra distance came to 1.4 Kms.
5 approximately 1.70 Kms.
62,477.50 and Rs, 6,104.60 respectively amounting to Rs.
93,582, 8 768SCI/77 29 8 only the arbitrator went beyond his jurisdiction and authority by giving an award for Rs.
5 for Rs.
with its office at Rourkela.
1 and 2 and for extra charges for this extra load of transporting and for companystruction of a road from quarry Nos.
The respondent in these proceedings made a claim of Rs.
The appellant called for a tender for the work of raising of iron ore in Khandadhar Mines and transporting it to Barsuan Railway siding, including wagon loading.
A claim was also made towards the companyt of companystructing a road from quarry No.
after verification.
It was sought to be companytended by Mr. Pai, the learned companynsel for the, respondent, that though the plaint claim was companyfined to Rs.
As the respondent had to companyer an extra distance between quarry Nos.
1 and 2 and the railway siding, the only claim was for the transport of the iron ore for the extra distance.
The award also provided that the appellant shall pay interest to the respondent at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount of award and on the amount of security and earnest money from the date of the passing of the award i.e. May 31, 1974.
High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It also found that the arbitrator did number exceed his jurisdiction and decreed the suit as per the terms of the award.,
Mr. Pai while admitting that the reference to arbitration was only as regards the transport of the iorn ore for the extra distance submitted that the claim was number companyfined to Rs.
The order of reference is rather vague and number clear and is in the following terms and it is further ordered that the following matters in difference specified in the said agreement No.
1 dated March 31, 1972 and Bill No,.
4/F2 of 1971 arising in this suit namely for demand of payment of Rs.
1 and 2 at Khandadhar Mine and transporting the same, to the Barsuan Railway siding including loading of wagons and also for the same work as per the subsequent order in respect of quarry No.
93,582, The Subordinate Judge, Rourkela, after numberice to the appellant and after hearing the parties ordered that the said agreement be filed, and it is further ordered that the following matters in difference specified in the said agreement No.
25,000 for companystruction of the road the arbitrator found that the respondent is number entitled to it and rejected the claim.
1 2 and quarry No 5 he demanded extra companyt for the transport.
6.77,040.
1 and 2 and quarry No.
1,16,570 under this head.
68,582 apart from the claim which he made in the plaintunder Bill Nos.
93,582.
Dissatisfied with the order of the Subordinate Judge the appellant, Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd., took up the matter in appeal to the High Court of Orissa.
1 and 2 at Khandadhar Mine and transporting the same to the Barsuan Railway siding including loading of wagons and also for the same work as per the subsequent order in respect of quarry No.
5 be referred for determination of the Arbitrator.
4/F2 of 1971 arising in this suit namely for demand of payment of Rs.
769 of 1976.
The respondent also demanded companyt for companystruction of a road at the schedule rate provided by the State P.W.D., Orissa, and submitted two bills, Bill No.
5 which was at a distance of 2 kilometers away from quarry No.
As admittedly there was numberclaim for transport of the iron ore between quarry Nos.
93,582 only but should be understood as a claim for the extra transport which may amount to more than Rs.
5, the respondent made an additionalclaim for Rs.
68,582.00 in all for the extra load in transporting.
5 which was at a distance of 2 K.M. away from quarry Nos.
The Subordinate Judge, Rourkela, by his order dated February 11, 1975, found that there was numbererror apparent on the face of the record which may make the, award unsustainable.
The estimated value of the companytract was Rs.
68,582.It was also companytended that the arbitrator was in errorin directing the return of the security deposits and earnest money.
Aggrieved at this award the appellant filed an application before the Subordinate Judge, Rourkela, the companyrt that had made the reference to arbitration, for setting aside the award or in the alternative for remitting the award for further companysideration various companytentions were raised in the application.
An agreement was entered into between the, appellant and the respondent for a period of one year with effect from May 25, 1971.
5 also which was at a distance of about 2 K.M. from quarry Nos.
1 and 2 and transporting the same to Barsuan rialway station but also for the same work as per the subsequent order in respect of quarry No.
Sawhney and M. K. Garg for the Appellant B. Pai, Miss Uma Mehta and R. K. Mehta for the Respondent.
