Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India vs R.K. Mittal on 5 September, 2012
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
Civil Revision No. 3657 of 1993 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No. 3657 of 1993
Date of decision:- 05.09.2012
Union of India
....Petitioner
Vs.
R.K. Mittal, MES Contractor and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
******
Present:- None.
A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL)
This petition assails the judgment dated 03.06.1993 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 13.09.1989 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Ist Class (A), Bathinda, making the Award dated 16.07.1986 as Rule of the Court.
No objection with regard to conduct of the Arbitrator has been raised by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The Additional District Judge, Bathinda, while dismissing the appeal, observed as under:-
"6. I have gone through the statement of Niranjan Singh who was examined by the Union of India and I find that he has admitted that due opportunities were afforded to the parties by the arbitrator before giving the award. From the arguments advanced by the learned Government Pleader, I find that his Civil Revision No. 3657 of 1993 2 main contention is with regard to the amount of Rs.25,596/- and as per the Government Pleader, this amount has been wrongly awarded by the arbitrator as wages and he vehemently argued that the contractor did not issue any notice with regard to the increase in the wages as per the terms in the contract. It was further pointed out that the amount pertaining to sal wood have been wrongly awarded by the Arbitrator. But the contention of the learned Government Pleader is not liable to be accepted because the Court is not to re-open the matter or in other words, the Court is not to step into the shoes of the Arbitrator in order to find out the facts or correctness of the award of the Arbitrator, as is clear from the facts quoted above that the parties themselves agreed to refer the matter to the arbitrator and a sole arbitrator was accepted by both the parties. Then in that event if no mistake appears on the face of the award the same cannot be set aside. I have gone through the law quoted by the learned Lower Court in its order and the same is not being reproduced in order to avoid repetition and I find that it is applicable to the facts of the case in hand and moreover, the learned Government Pleader have not been able to point out any illegality in the award calling for interference in it on behalf of the Court. As already stated above proper opportunity of hearing was afforded by the arbitrator and the arbitrator conducted the proceedings in accordance with law and Rules."
No merits.
Dismissed.
(A.N.JINDAL)
September 05, 2012 JUDGE
ajp