TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 37.2 lakhs. While the work was in progress, the work area was flooded in the night of August 25 and 26, 1991. The respondent-contractor herein filed a claim on account of loss sustained by him due to floo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment, the appellant is in appeal before us. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated his argument 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 sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sult of which the loss was sustained by the respondent was unprecedented and in fact it was an act of God. In absence of such an evidence, the arbitrator as well as the High Court has recorded a finding of fact that the flood which has caused loss to the respondent was not due to the unprecedented rain and, therefore, Clause 47 of the Agreement was not attracted. Any award made by an arbitrator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 940 providing for setting aside an award is restrictive in its operation. Unless one or the other condition contained in Section 30 is satisfied, an award cannot be set aside. The arbitrator is a Judge chosen by the parties and his decision is final. The Court is precluded from reappraising the evidence. Even in a case where the award contains reasons, the interference therewith would still be not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
