Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by special leave arising from a contract dispute over Hume pipes. The appellant, a contractor, sought payment at the rate of Rs.432 per Hume pipe, claiming that a letter dated 5 July 1979 formed part of a subsequent agreement dated 17 July 1979. The respondent was the State of Bihar. The dispute had previously been examined by the Civil Court and the High Court, which both held that the letter did not form an integral part of the agreement and therefore the agreement contained no obligation to pay the higher rate. An arbitrator had also declined to grant the amount claimed. In the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellant argued that the letter was part of the agreement and that the agreement obliged payment at Rs.432 per Hume pipe. Counsel further contended that the arbitrator committed legal misconduct in declining the amount. The respondent's counsel was heard, though the judgment does not record the respondent's arguments in detail. The Supreme Court observed that the Civil Court and the High Court had gone into the question whether the letter formed part of the agreement and had held that it did not. The Court noted that this was a finding of fact and found no error of law warranting interference. On the second contention regarding arbitrator's legal misconduct, the Court found no substance in it and also noted that the contention had not been argued before the High Court. Consequently, the Court refused to allow the counsel to raise that contention for the first time in the appeal. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The decision affirmed the concurrent findings of the courts below and the arbitrator's award.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Finding of Fact - Concurrent Findings - Not mentioned - The Civil Court and High Court concurrently found that the letter dated 5 July 1979 did not form an integral part of the agreement dated 17 July 1979; therefore, the agreement did not contain any obligation to pay at the rate of Rs.432 per Hume pipe to the appellant. The Supreme Court held that this being a finding of fact, there was no error of law warranting interference. (Para 1) B) Arbitration - Legal Misconduct - Contention Not Raised in High Court - Not mentioned - The appellant contended that the arbitrator committed legal misconduct in declining to grant the amount claimed. The Supreme Court found no substance in this contention and further noted that it was not argued in the High Court; therefore, the counsel could not be allowed to address this contention in the appeal. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether letter dated 5 July 1979 formed part of agreement dated 17 July 1979; whether arbitrator committed legal misconduct in declining to grant amount claimed.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. No costs.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact by Civil Court and High Court that letter dated 5 July 1979 was not part of agreement dated 17 July 1979 are binding
- agreement did not contain obligation to pay Rs.432 per Hume pipe
- no error of law warranting interference
- contention of arbitrator's legal misconduct not raised in High Court cannot be raised in appeal
- appeal dismissed with no costs.
