LexTAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARD versus M/S. SATYANARAYANA BROTHERS PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 598 A TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARD v. h,.. M/S. SATYANARAYANA BROTHERS PVT. LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 2880-2881 of 2005) B NOVEMBER 5, 2009 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Arbitration Act, 1940: lr " c s. 30(a) - Legal misconduct by arbitrator - Contract between parties to supply drinking water to the city - As work could not be completed within the extended time, matter referred to arbitration - Award filed in High Court-Application for setting aside the award filed - Ultimately, in the appeals D before Supreme Court, with the consent of parties, matter referred to arbitrator appointed by Supreme Court - Arbitrator submitting the award to Supreme Court - Both the parties ~ aggrieved by the award on the ground of non-application of mind by arbitrator to materials before him - Common ground E of parties that arbitrator misconducted himself in appreciating the case made out by the respective parties vis-a-vis the materials on record - HELD: Arbitrator legally misconducted himself thereby attracting the provisions of s.30(a) - Award set aside and matter remitted to arbitrator for decision afresh ,.__ - However, in place of the earlier arbitrator, another arbitrator ~ F appointed who would decide the matter expeditiously in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court passed in the appeals on 7.2.2007. CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. G 2880-2881 of 2005. From the Judgment & Order dated 24.3.2004 of the High >- --- Court of Judicature at Madras in O.S.A. Nos. 248 of 1989 and - 59 of 1993. H 598 TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARD 599 v. M/S. SATYANARAYANA BROTHERS PVT. LTD. L.N. Rao, Rakesh K. Sharma for the Appellant. A -~J Dipankar P. Gupta, T.G. Narayanan Nair, C.N. Sree Kumar, M.T. George, K.N. Madhusoodanan Nair for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered B ORDER 1. In order to overcome the shortage of drinking water in ... ~ the City of Chennai, the Government of Tamil Nadu formulated a scheme known as "Veeranam Project" to provide drinking c water to the city. Tenders were invited for the said scheme and ultimately, the tender submitted by the respondent M/s. Satyanarayana Brothers Pvt. Ltd. was accepted. The work undertaken could not be completed within the stipulated time and the respondent sought extension to complete the work. D Though the time was extended, the respondent could not complete the same on account of disputes which were -... ultimately referred to the arbitration of two arbitrators appointed '< ,/··~ by the parties. The arbitrators appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Palaniswamy, a retired Judge of the Madras High Court, as their umpire. On account of disagreement between the E arbitrators the matter was referred to the umpire who held that the respondent was entitled to Rs.40,02,591/- from the appellant ii ' .... and after allowing the deduction for the sam~the respondent . 1; '.~·,.. • was liable to pay to the appellant a sum o(~~.a,69,93,674/- with inte'rest @9% per annumJrom the date I: Award. Out F of the said Award, ohly ~.·s:u:m.of R.s,9,000l"J,;; ',·.awarded as damages for breach of contract. , , · 2. The Award was filed by the umpire in the Madras High Court and was numbered as O.P.No.428/79. While the G appellant filed Application No.560/80 in the said O.P.No.428/ ... ,.. 79 praying for a decree to be passed in terms of the Award, the respondent being aggrieved by the Award, filed 0.P.No.122/80 for setting aside the Award. The learned single Judge allowed the prayer for setting aside the Award anq H 600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A consequently, the other application filed by the appeilant for a decree to be passed in.: terms of the Award was dismissed. ~~ C.S.No.176/78, which had been filed by the appellant, was also dismissed. B 3. Thereafter, the appellants preferred appeals, being O.S.A.Nos.248 of 1989 and 59 of 1993, against the order of the Single Judge. The said appeals were allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated 18/10/2001 and a decree was passed in terms of the Award dated 10th ~ . September, 1979, passed by the umpire. Aggrieved by the c order dated 18/10/2001, by which OSA 248/89 and 59/93 had been initially allowed by the Division Bench, the respondent filed SLP(C)Nos.2096-2097 of 2002. The said special leave petitions were re-number
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.