Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Aug 4: High Court held that the matter once decided and settled by the arbitrator with the consent of parties cannot be permitted to be opened again and dismissed the arbitration application challenging the award passed by the arbitrator.
The award was passed by the arbitrator with regard to payment of work done by the contractor as allotted to him by the LAWDA for Mechanical Dredging and De-silting of Bed of Dal Lake near Shalimar Bridge in outskirts of Srinagar to the required depth including all types of leads and lifts, carriages up to dumping site, dumping, levelling and dressing etc.
Justice Sindhu Sharma while dismissing the challenging of award said, once the issue involved adjudicated upon by arbitrators with the consent of parties cannot be permitted to be opened again is because it is expedient that there should be an end to litigation when once a matter has been decided between the parties.
Court said the scope of interference with an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is fairly limited and narrow and the Courts do not sit in an appeal adjudicating the challenge to the award and the Arbitrator is the master of evidence after due consideration of facts, circumstances, evidence and material before him.
“It is well settled that valid award made by a voluntary reference is final and conclusive judgment between the parties, respecting all the matters referred by the submission and binds the rights of the parties at all time without appeal, both as to fact and law.
The dispute was referred to arbitration after the consent of both the parties. The Arbitrator rightly held that the applicant’s intention was to settle the dispute out of Court by Arbitration and any parties can seek the intervention of the Court for settling the dispute by Arbitration”, reads the judgment.
Court said, the objection regarding validity of reference or award can be taken even after the award is filed but if the parties themselves have referred the matter to arbitrator, they cannot take the plea that no dispute was in existence.
The public policy doctrine court added which is well prevalent that the Court shall take into account the fact that inconvenience is caused to public at large and deserves more attention, therefore, it is suggested that law would defer the public good or private good and mischief to one can avoid prejudice to many, thus, the public policy exception remains to intervene and check whether applicable rule of law would derogate from the existing fundamental notion of justice delivery system.
Follow our WhatsApp channel