LexSTATE OF U.P. versus ALLIED CONSTRUCTIONS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF U.P. A v. ALLIED CONSTRUCTIONS JULY 31, 2003 [V.N. KHARE, CJ., K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] B Arbitration Act, 1940: Arbitration-Force majeure clause of agreement- Contract between the parties for construction of a bridge-cum-fall-Work partly done by contractor destroyed by flood-Claim by contractor for loss sustained-Matter referred to arbitrator who made an award in favour of C contractor-Plea of State Government to invoke force majeure clause of agreement rejected-Held, a perusal of relevant clause of the agreement shows that it protected the State from liability and damage occasioned by unprecedented flood which could not have been foreseen or avoided as a prudent person-No evidence was led before the arbitrator to show that the D rain as a result of which the loss was sustained by the respondent was unprecedented and in fact it was an act of God-A fact to this effect has be(m recorded by the arbitrator as well as the High Court and, therefore, both came to the conclusion that force majeure clause of the agreement was not attracted-Contract-Force majeure clause in the agreement-Applicability ef E Award by arbitrator-Setting aside of-Held, award made by pn arbitrator can be set aside only if one or the other term specified in sections 30 and 33 of the Act is attracted-The arbitrator is a judge chosen by the parties a11d his decision is final-Court is precluded from reappraising the F evidence-Once it is found that the view of the arbitrator is a plausible one, court will refrain itself from interfering-On facts, it is not a case wherein it can be said that the ar'bitrator has misconducted the proceedings- Interpretation of a contract is a matter for arbitrator to determine-It was within his jurisdiction to interpret the force majeure clause of the agreement having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein-The award is a speaktng G one-The arbitrator has assigned sufficient and cogent reasons in support thereof Mis. Sudarsan Trading Co. v. The Government of Kera/a, AIR (1989) SC 890; UP. State Electricity Board v. Searsole Chemicals Ltd., (2001:1 3 55 H 56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A SCC 397; /SPAT Engineering & Foundry Works, B.S. City, Bokaro v. Steel Authority of India Ltd B.S., City, Bokaro, (20011 6 SCC 347, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14152 of 1996. B From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12. I 995 of the Allahabad High Court in F.A.O. No. 715 of 1994. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra and Garvesh Kabra for the Appellant. Uday Umesh Lalit for the Respondent. c The following Order of the Court was delivered : Under a contract entered into by and between the appellant and the respondent, the respondent undertook construction of bridge-cum-fall at Munda Khera Scape at the estimated cost of Rs. 37.2 lakhs. While the work was in D progress, the work area was flooded in the night of August 25 and 26, I 99 I. The respondent-contractor herein filed a claim on account of loss sustained by him due to flooding of the work area. Ultimately, the matter was referred to an arbitrator. The arbitrator gave an award for payment of a sum of Rs. 12,55,365 together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent from 1.11.1991 E till the date of the award and 6 per cent thereafter. The respondent filed the award for being made rule of the Court. The appellant herein filed a petition, inter alia, on the ground that the arbitrator has misconducted the proceeding3, inasmuch as the force majeure contained in Clause 47 disentitled the respondent from making any claim which was on account of unprecedented F rain. The said objection was rejected and the award was made rule of the Court. The appellant thereafter filed a first appeal from order before the High Court and the same was dismissed. It is against the said judgment, the appellant is in appeal before us. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated his argument G raised before the High Court. In fact, his argument based on force majeure is that because of unprecendented rain the liability of loss cannot be thrust upon the appellant. We do not find any merit in this contention. Clause 47 of the Agreement runs as under: "Neither party shall be liable to the other for any loss or damage H occasioned by or arising out of act of God, such as unprecedented \. ST A TE v. ALLIED CONSTRUCTIONS 57 flood, volcanic eruption, earthquake or other convulsio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.