Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Punjab State Electricity Board And ... vs M/S Sky Lab Build Tech. Construction (P) on 31 May, 2012

Author: Mahesh Grover

Bench: Mahesh Grover

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
              CHANDIGARH


                                C.W.P.No.11113 of 2012

                                Date of decision : 31.5.2012


Punjab State Electricity Board and others
                                               ....Petitioners
                 Versus


M/s Sky Lab Build Tech. Construction (P)
Limited and another

                                               ...Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
                  ....

Present : Mr.Varun Katyal, Advocate
          for the petitioners.
                          .....

MAHESH GROVER, J.

The petitioners have impugned the order dated 4.1.2012 vide which the objections filed by the petitioners were dismissed as being premature as they were filed prior to the submission of award in the Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners while making his submissions has not disputed this fact and has rather stated that after the submission of award a notice ought to have been issued to the petitioners.

On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The objections to the award could not have been filed before its submission in the Court and, therefore, the court of learned Addl. District Judge was right in C.W.P.No.11113 of 2012 -2- observing that the objections filed by the petitioners were premature.

In so far as the notice is concerned, the ostensible reason before ever such provision in law is that the principles of natural justice may not be violated and the other side ought to be on notice and made aware of the proceedings against him. The facts reveal that the petitioners were aware of the proceedings and the passing of the award and its submission to the Court. Consequently the plea that notice was not issued even if is accepted, does not indicate any prejudice to be caused to the petitioners. The contention is, therefore, misplaced and is rejected.

The petitioners are at liberty to file fresh objections in case the law permits and the same shall be decided by the learned trial Court in accordance with law.

Petition dismissed.

31.5.2012 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss