abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 438 OF 2007 M/s Saloja & Sons .. Petitioner V/s Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Shilpa Kapil for the petitioner. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the respondents. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 17TH JUNE 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner contractor challanges the unanimous award dated 31st July 2007 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the claims of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is a railway contractor who made claims against the respondents for the work allegedly done by him. The claims were referred to arbitration and by the impugned order, the claims have been rejected. - 2 - 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Arbitral Tribunal erred in law in rejecting claim no.1 (regarding work order nos.43 to 46) ignoring the admission of the respondents. The respondents vide its letter dated 2nd February 2007 has admitted that the petitioner had carried out the work regarding work order nos.43 to 46 vide its letter dated 2nd February 2007. In the circumstances, the Arbitral Tribunal ought to have awarded the claim no.1 as the same was admitted. Since the Arbitral Tribunal has not considered the admission contained in the letter of the respondents dated 2nd February 2007, submitted learned counsel, the award is bad in law. In my view, the submission has no merit for the reasons indicated below. 5. While considering the claim no.1 relating to work order nos.43 to 46, the Arbitral Tribunal has noted that the claim was based upon entries made in the measurement book by Mr.J.R. Nagpal, P.Way Inspector. The letter dated 2nd February 2007 was also written on the basis of the said entries in the measurement book. It was however subsequently discovered that the work was not done at all and false entries were made by Mr.J.R. Nagpal in the measurement book. A charge sheet was issued to Mr.Nagpal and in the course of departmental enquiry for the major penalty, it was held that entries - 3 - made by Mr.Nagpal were false. In view of this, the alleged admission contained in the letter dated 2nd February 2007 would not be of much assistance to the petitioner. In any event, the Arbitral Tribunal has considered the admission contained in the letter dated 2nd February 2007 as also the entries in the measurement book and has come to the conclusion that the entries were false. This is a finding of fact which is not open for challenge in a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 6. No other point was urged. 7. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the arbitration petition which is hereby rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)