HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA L.P.A.No.44 of 2003 Date: 11-04-2011 Between: Union of India and others ……… Appellants and M/s. Arvind Constructions (P) Ltd. And another ……… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA L.P.A.No.44 of 2003 ORDER: (Per BPR, J) An usual proceeding, at the instance of the Union of India in this appeal as appellants, is arising under Section 39(1) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, where the appellants are aggrieved against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P.No.3 of 2001, dated 27-12-2002 allowing the petition purported to have been filed under Sections 14 to 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act, where the respondent- contractor sought for the relief of making the award, dated 29-04-2001, as the Rule of the Court by passing a decree in terms of the said award. Heard Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned Standing counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents herein. The present dispute is the one which arises in pursuance of a claim set forth by the respondent-contractor in a complaint against the appellants for not complying with the agreement having committed a breach and hence the liability. The agreement in the case is dated 10-04-1987 between the appellant and the respondent-contractor for execution of the works of providing of wall claddings, annexures and flooring of building No.2 at Yeddumylaram near Shankerpally. The possession was handed over to the Contractor on 01-05-1986. The time agreed for completion of the work comes to an end by 30-10-1987. However, there has been extension granted by the appellants till 31-05-1990. Yet certain differences arose between the respondent-contractor and the appellants, and the appellants had invoked arbitration clause on 10- 08-1995. An Arbitrator was appointed initially as per the orders of the civil Court in O.P.No.55 of 1995, dated 24-07-1997, which was set aside by this Court in revision in C.R.P.No.3777 of 1997, dated 08-10-1998, and appointed Justice K. Ramaswamy, Retired Judge of Supreme Court, as Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute. Accordingly, both parties submitted their claims and counter claims and after holding an enquiry and going into the merits, the learned Arbitrator passed the Award, dated 29-04-2001, allowing certain claims of the respondent-contractor. Hence, the present application was filed by the respondent-contractor for making the said award as the Rule of the Court. It is to be noticed that in spite of such an award against the appellants, they did not choose to file any application as contemplated under the provisions of the Arbitration Act assailing the award and seeking to set aside the same. Neither in the Court below nor in this Court as well there is any explanation on the part of the appellants for such lapse. In the application filed before the learned single Judge to make the award the Rule of the Court, the appellants have come forth with several objections which, on a reading of it, would show that it clearly goes into the merits of each claim and the award passed thereon. These objections raised by the appellants were sought to be repelled by the respondent-contractor contending that there is no warrant as such to go against the award. On these and several other contentions submitted from both sides, the leaner single Judge has gone into such objection and also on merits to see, prima facie, whether the claims are sustainable or not, apart from the finding on the claims awarded by the learned Arbitrator. By an elaborate consideration giving all the details, chequered events and especially quoting at length the reasoning given by the Arbitrator in the award, the learned single Judge did not find any error in respect of any of the claims as awarded by the learned Arbitrator. There have been about ten claims as set forth by the respondent-contractor before the learned Arbitrator and the award takes note of the same. The scope of the enquiry in such applications, where the awardee seeks to make the award the Rule of the Court, is now no longer res integra. It is well established that the Court, in such a situation, would not venture to go into the merits or make any re-appreciation of the evidence and the material on record and much less come to any contra conclusion as such. It is not a case that no opportunity was given to either side. It is also not the case that their individual claims, counter claims and objections were not considered by the learned Arbitrator or even by the learned single Judge. There has been a due consideration and due attention not only by the learned Arbitrator but also by the learned single Judge. In view of the same, we are refraining ourselves from falling back into the consideration of each and every claim or the counter claim or even the objection as such and to give a finding thereon which we feel that it is totally beyond the scope. As far as the scope of the enquiry is concerned, in these proceedings there is no dispute from both sides on the well established principles. I n MADHYA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD v. PROGRESSIVE WRITERS AND PUBLISHERS [1], it has been held that the Courts do not exercise any appellate jurisdiction and cannot reappraise the evidence. The award passed by the Arbitrator is ordinarily final and it cannot be interfered with unless the reasons or the findings contained therein are totally perverse or the award is based on wrong proposition of law. In this appeal, an attempt is also made by the learned Standing counsel to bring to the notice of this Court certain new aspects including new material which we are afraid that cannot be acceded to nor any permission can be given to look into the same or receive. Apart from an exercise already made before the learned Arbitrator, the learned single Judge also did make re-exercise and therefore, any such new grounds containing new material facts could not have been introduced for the first time in this appeal as held in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. HINDUSTAN CONSTN. CO. LTD [2]. Similar is the decision in RAVINDRA KUMAR GUPTA & CO. v. UNION OF INDIA [3], wherein it was held that the findings recorded by the Arbitrator on the evidence giving elaborate reasons could not be said to be either perverse or based on no evidence and hence, could not be set aside. In view of the aforesaid principles, we are afraid that this appeal cannot be converted into a first appeal, nor can there be any such attempt to once again fall back on the detailed aspects on the claims or the counter claims. We do not find any merits in this appeal. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J ________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J Date: 11-04-2011 YCR [1] (2009) 5 SCC 678 [2] 2010 ARB. W.L.J. 289 (SC) [3] (2010) 1 SCC 409