IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 RP.No. 464 of 2010 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN ARBA.22/2007 Dated 05/03/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS ------------------------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER, CHENNAI ZONE, MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES, CHENNAI. 2. SRI. RAJENDRA PRASAD, JOINT DIRECTOR GENERAL (CONTRACTS) ARMY HEADQUARTERS, QMG'S BRANCH/ADGTE, KASHMIR HOUSE, ROOM NO. 122, RAJAJI MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. P. DIVAKARAN, 51 STADIUM COMPLEX, CANNANORE - 670 001, KERALA NOW RESIDING AT VAGDHA, THULICHERRY ROAD, CANNANORE-4 (DIED) 2. T.P. LASSENA DIVAKARAN (WIFE), AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT VAGDA HOUSE, POST ALARIL, VAIDYAM MUKKU, KANNUR - 670 008. 3. DILASH DIVAKARAN (S0N), AGED 26, RESIDING AT VAGDA HOUSE, POST ALARIL, VAIDYAM MUKKU, KANNUR - 670 008. 4. DANUSHA DIVAKARAN (SON), AGED 26, RESIDING AT VAGDA HOUSE, POST ALARIL, VAIDYAM MUKKU, KANNUR - 670 008. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.464 of 2010 in Arb.A .No. 22 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010 Order Basheer, J: This Review Petition is directed against the judgment passed by us in the above Appeal on March 5, 2010. 2. Sri.T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Learned Asst. Solicitor General who appears for the petitioners/appellants contends that there is error apparent on the face of the judgment under review inasmuch as the fact that claim Nos.1 and 4 were the subject matter of the earlier arbitration could not be brought to the notice of this Court due to oversight. He submits that the direction issued to the Engineer-in-Chief to appoint a new Arbitrator to adjudicate all the 13 claims is therefore liable to be reviewed. 3. Per contra it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that it is too late in the day for the appellants to contend for the position that claim Nos.1 and 4 cannot be the subject matter of arbitration. The award passed by the Arbitrator was challenged by the respondent contending, inter alia, that the award on these two claims was passed without jurisdiction. The Arbitrator had held that these two claims were 'excepted matters'. The learned subordinate Judge had accepted the above contention raised by the respondent and set aside IRP.464/2010. : 2 : the award. In that view of the matter claim Nos.1 and 4 may also have to be considered by the new Arbitrator to be appointed as directed by the court below. 4. But learned counsel very fairly concedes that the petitioners had adjusted a sum of Rs.64278/- towards the dues payable by the respondent to the Income Tax Department. In other words, petitioners had satisfied the award passed by the Arbitrator on claim Nos.1 and 4. Learned counsel further submits, very fairly we should say, that respondents are not very keen to pursue claim Nos.1 and 4 any further. Respondents will be satisfied if the Arbitrator takes up for consideration the other 11 claims. The above submission is recorded. In that view of the matter no further orders are necessary in the Review Petition. 5. The Engineer-in-Chief, Military Engineering Services, New Delhi shall not delay the matter any further and it shall be ensured that a new Arbitrator is appointed in respect of all claims except 1 and 4, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Review Petition is disposed of in the above terms. A.K. Basheer Judge. P.Q. Barkath Ali Judge. an.