NT Reporter
Panaji
The High Court of Bombay at Goa on Friday dismissed an appeal filed by the state government in the long-pending dispute over the construction of the new Mandovi bridge, holding that there was no reason to interfere with an earlier order upholding the arbitral award.
The appeal was filed by the state government under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the February 22, 2016 order of the Principal District Judge, North Goa, who had rejected the government’s objections to the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act.
Records show that the government had invited tenders for the construction of the new Mandovi bridge on NH-17, and the contract was awarded to U P State Bridge Corporation Ltd.
The agreement was signed on February 21, 1987, and the bridge was opened to traffic on July 23, 1992. However, during construction, span 11 of the bridge collapsed on October 14, 1990. Disputes subsequently arose between the contractor and the state during execution of the project, leading to arbitration proceedings as provided in the contract.
Under the arbitration clause, both parties were entitled to nominate one arbitrator each. The contractor nominated Shitala Sharan as its arbitrator, while the state appointed its nominee. The arbitral tribunal eventually passed a unanimous award, and had directed the state to pay Rs 1.31 crore towards claims, along with Rs 1.2 crore as interest.
Challenging the award, the state contended that it was liable to be set aside. However, the district court rejected these objections in 2016.
Dismissing the present appeal, the High Court observed that the district judge had examined each objection raised by the state and had decided the matter in accordance with law, furnishing proper reasons.
The court held that the order did not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference. It also noted that the arbitral award was unanimous and that there was nothing on record to show that it was vitiated by bias or any likelihood of bias on the part of the contractor’s nominee.
Even assuming bias on the part of one arbitrator, the court said, it stood neutralised by the presence of the other two members of the tribunal — the state’s nominee and the chairman — who were independent and had also unanimously passed the award.
