COURT NO. 10 THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Appeal from Order No. 228 of 2007 State of U.P. through Superintending Engineer, 27th Circle, U.P. Tehri. … Defendant- Appellant. Versus 1. M/s Gupta & Company, 30/48 Bindal Marg, Dehradun through Sri A.N.Gupta. 2. Sri A.N. Gupta, 30/48, Bindal Marg, Dehradun. … Plaintiff- Respondents. Sri P.C.Bist, learned counsel for the appellant-State. Sri S.K.Posti, learned counsel for the respondents. Date March 03, 2008. PC: Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28-11- 1990 passed by the then II Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun, in Miscellaneous Case No. 68 of 1986 arising out of Original Suit NO. 31 of 1986 M/s Gupta & Company Vs. State of U.P. whereby the award passed by the Arbitrator has been made rule of the Court and the objection of the appellant-State registered as Misc. Case No. 68 of 1986 has been rejected. Relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal in brief are that a contract bond between the parties was executed on 27.8.1980 and the plaintiff-M/s Gupta & Company was given the contract for construction of Steel Girder Bridge over Eglar river. The dispute between the parties has arisen regarding payment of amount under the contract. The matter was referred for arbitration to settle the dispute between the parties and Sri N.K.Mittal, Superintending Engineer, 27th Circle P.W.D. Tehri was appointed as Arbitrator, but the Sole Arbitrator could not conclude the arbitral proceedings, hence Sri H.S.Kalsi was subsequently appointed as sole arbitrator vide order dated 22-11-1984 passed by the Chief Engineer (Hills). The plaintiff preferred claim worth Rs. 95,296.45 before the Arbitrator plus interest at the rate of 18%. The Arbitrator after hearing both the parties made his Award dated 1- 11-1985 and filed the same before the Court on 31.1.1986. The appellant-State of U.P. challenged the arbitration award mainly on the ground that the Arbitrator has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him and the Arbitrator could not have passed the award of more than Rupees one lac. It was also stated that the arbitrator has misconducted himself by entertaining the claim of more than Rs. 62,520/-. It was also mentioned that the arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings and he has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in him. The plaintiff-respondents has denied the allegations made by the appellant and it has been contended that the State has exaggerated the valuation just to dispute the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. It was also contended that the arbitrator has neither misconducted himself nor the proceedings and has not exercised the jurisdiction not vested in him. The learned trial court has framed two Issues for determination:- 1. Whether the award is liable to be set aside for the reasons mentioned in clauses A to J of para 8 of the petition? 2. Relief? The learned Trial Court has framed as many as five Issues in the Original Suit No. 31 of 1986 as under:- 1. Whether the Arbitrator has misconducted himself and the proceedings as alleged in para 8 of the petition. 2. Whether the award is beyond time? If so, its effect? 3. Whether the award is under stamped? If so, its effect? 4. Whether the petition is not properly signed, verified and presented? If so, its effect? 5. Relief? The Trial court after hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the material on record has taken up Issue No.1 of the Misc. Case No. 68 of 1986 as well as Issue Nos. 1 to 3 of the Original Suit together for decision. The State of U.P.- appellant had contended before the trial court that the Arbitrator was not empowered to make the impugned award of more than Rs. One lac. The trial court has observed on Issue No.1 that the claim of Rs. 94,637/- was preferred by the claimant-respondent. The award of interest @ 18% per annum was the discretionary power of the Arbitrator either grant or toe refuse the interest. Learned trial court has observed that the no fixed amount had been claimed as interest by the contractor. It was also observed that there was no dispute regarding the amount of interest. Learned Trial Court has found that the claim was preferred for a sum of Rs. 94,637.00 before the arbitrator Sri H.S.Kalsi, who was fully competent to make the impugned award. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28-11-1990 whereby the award dated 1.11.1985 has been made Rule of the Court, the appellant State has come up before this Court in appeal. The main ground of challenge raised by the appellant- State is that the Superintending Engineer of the Public Works Department could not have passed an Award beyond a sum of Rs. One lac, therefore, the impugned award is without jurisdiction. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is pertinent to mention that in the objection preferred by the appellant-State before the learned Trial Court a ground was raised that the Arbitrator Sri H.S.Kalsi, who had been Superintending Engineer in the Public Works Department at the time of his appointment as Arbitrator, was not competent to make award of more than Rupees one Lac. It is not disputed fact that the Arbitrator Sri H.S.Kalsi was posted as Superintending Engineer at the relevant time and he was empowered to initiate arbitral proceedings upto the claim of Rs. One lac. It is not disputed that during the arbitral proceedings, Sri H.S.Kalsi was promoted to the post of Chief Engineer meaning thereby at the time of making the award, the Sole Arbitrator was Chief Engineer. The appellant has annexed a copy of the award as Annexure No. 1 along with the stay application. From a bare perusal of the impugned award, it is obvious that the amounts of claim preferred by the contractor-respondent do not exceed Rupees one Lac. The amount awarded under the impugned award is undisputedly Rs. 59,995/-. It is also obvious that the interest @ 15% per annum has been allowed by the Arbitrator on the amount of award. From no stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the learned Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned award. The learned Civil Judge has elaborately dealt with the matter and has recorded a categorical finding that the Arbitrator was fully competent to try the arbitral proceedings and pass the impugned award. It has also been contended on behalf of the appellant that the impugned award is under-stamped. The learned Civil Judge has found that the stamp duty of Rs. 140/- had been paid in accordance with Article 12 of the Stamp Act. The appellant has failed to establish that the award is in any way under-stamped. Lastly it has been contended on behalf of the appellant-State that the learned Civil Judge has erred in holding that the correctness of the award could not be adjudged by the court on merits. In my view the interference of the court is open if the arbitrator had mis-conducted himself or the proceedings and if the arbitrator had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him. The appellant has failed to make out a case that the arbitrator has mis- conducted himself or the proceedings. I do not find that the Arbitrator had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him. Having gone through the impugned award and the order dated 28-11-1990 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun, I am of the considered view that the learned Arbitrator was fully competent to pass the impugned award and the appointment of arbitrator Sri H.S.Kalsi to the post of Chief Engineer does not make any difference. It is not disputed that the appointment of Arbitrator was made by name and not by designation. Even on this ground, the impugned award does not become illegal or invalid. The findings recorded by the court below do not call for any interference by this Court in appeal. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed outright. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned order dated 28-11-1990 is upheld. Costs easy. All applications stand disposed of. RCP (B.S.Verma, J.)