Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Ors. vs Satluj Constructions Ltd. on 4 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005(1)ARBLR79(P&H), (2004)138PLR172
JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India prays for setting aside the order dated 19.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh dismissing the application of the petitioner for staying the operation of the judgment and decree dated 14,6.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chandigarh while deciding Arbitration Case No. 6 of 28.1.2002. The Civil Judge has made the award dated 14.1.2002 passed by the Arbitrator as Rule of the Court. On the ground that the appeal was likely to be accepted and the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner, the interim order was sought. It was further pleaded that the recovery of the amount would become impossible from the respondent the application has been dismissed by recording the following order:-
"I have gone through the impugned judgment, award passed by the arbitrator and the entire relevant record on the file. In this case there is no allegation of corruption against the Arbitrator. The award was given in this case by Shri G.C. Mittal, Hon'ble Chief Justice (Retd.) of Delhi High Court and Rajasthan High Court and he remained Judge of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court for a long time. The award was passed on the basis of the provisions of the old Arbitration Act. As per provisions of the Old Arbitration Act, the arbitrator was not required to give reasons in detail of his findings. Even then the arbitrator has given the reasons while passing the award. Thereafter the validity of the award has been affirmed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chandigarh while passing the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.6.2003. The points raised by the learned Govt. Pleader have been discussed in detail in the impugned judgment. The only allegation against the arbitrator regarding misconduct is that he conveyed message to the appellants applicants State of Punjab through the Distt. Attorney that the counter claim shall not be entertained in cases the fees of the arbitrator is not given. No evidence has been adduced to prove this fact. Any how the arbitrator was well within his right to ask the appellants to pay his fees and it can not be considered as an act of serious misconduct.
Law is well settled that the Arbitrator is the sole judge of quality as well as quantity of evidence. The court can not sit in appeal over the view of the arbitrator and reasonableness of an award is not the matter for the court to consider unless the award is preposterous or absurd. In this regard the reference can be made of the case laws (1993-3)105 P.L.R. Page-1 in case the Punjab State through Executive Engineer, Kharar Construction Division, SYL Canal Project, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) v. M/s Amar Nath Aggarwal Constructions (P) Ltd. Panchkula and Anr., A.I.R. 1987 S.C. page 2316 in case Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar and Anr., and A.I.R. 1987 S.C. page 81 in case Hindustan Tea Co: v. K. Sashikant & Co. Anr.. The crux of the above cited case laws is that the award can be set aside only if there is evidence of corruption, acts of fraud or conducting the proceedings against the provisions of law. Moreover, the objections filed by the applicants appellants State of Punjab have been dismissed by the learned Trial Court. In the light of these circumstances, it can not be held that a prima facie case and balance of convenience is in favour of the applicants appellants State of Punjab. In case the application filed by the applicants appellants for stay of the operation of the impugned judgment is dismissed the appellants are not likely to suffer any irreparable loss. The litigation is going on since long and petitioner firm can not be deprived for more time to receive its amount due. The amount to be recovered is specific and it has been held by the Hon'ble apex court as well as our own Hon'ble High Court time and again that no injunction against a money decree should be granted because the payment of money ordinarily is not considered to be an injury which can not be compensated later on. My attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner firm towards the observations made by our own Hon'ble High Court in case Executive Engineer Mukerian Hydel Channel v. Kartar Singh £ Company, bearing F.A.O. No. 864 of 1991, Executive Engineer v. Dayal Pal Singh etc.. bearing F.A.O. No. 503 of 1992 (C&M) and State of Punjab v. M/s Sutlej Construction Co. Ltd., bearing C,R. No. 3400 of 1996. In all these aforesaid cases in similar circumstances the Hon'ble High Court has observed that the amount should be deposited by the appellants to be disbursed to the Decree Holder on furnishing adequate security for its restitution to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Apart from it the cited case law (1982)-3 Supreme Court Cases page 199 in case Mehta Teja Singh and Company v. Grindlays Bank Limited, and (1982)84 P.L.R. page 505 (P&H) in case Jai Parkash v. Ram Singh and Ors., also support the version of the respondent firm M/s Sutlej Construction Co. No case law was cited by the learned Govt. Pleader during the course of arguments.
As a result as per discussion above in detail I found no merit in the application filed by the appellants applicants State of Punjab for stay of the operation of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. I found no merit in the application and the same stands dismissed. If the amount is deposited by the appellants applicants State of Punjab before the learned Trial Court, the same be paid to the petitioner firm M/s Sutlej Construction Co. on furnishing adequate security for its restitution to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court."
2. Mr. R.K. Joshi learned State counsel has argued that the Arbitrator has failed to take into consideration the counter claim set up by the petitioners. He has further submitted that there was no justification for awarding an amount of Rs. 11,60,000/- on account of non payment for the work actually executed but not reflected in the final bill and on account of payment at lesser rate.
3. At this stage, Mr. P.S. Rana, learned counsel for the respondent-caveator has intervened to point out that the statement made by the learned State counsel is not sustain-able because a perusal of the award dated 14.1.2002 passed by the sole Arbitrator makes it evident that counter claim made by the petitioners has been considered in detail and, thereafter, the amount of Rs. 49,60,823/- was awarded to the respondent-caveator. He has placed on record a photostat copy of the award dated 14.1.2002 and has drawn my attention to last two pages of the award. The same is taken on record as Mark 'A'.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order as well as the award, I am of the considered opinion that in view of the settled law, the award could be set aside only if there is prima facie evidence of misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator or patent violation of the provisions of law while conducting the arbitration proceedings. There is no such allegation nor any evidence. Reliance placed by the learned Additional District Judge on various judgments of the Supreme court as well as this court is meritorious and the discretion exercised does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Once the award has been made as Rule of the Court, it is as good as money decree and ordinarily no stay is granted in such cases. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioners are saddled with costs of Rs. 10,000/- for adopting unreasonable stance before this Court. It is made clear that the observations made in this order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case.