Punjab-Haryana High Court
Housing Board And Anr. vs Registered Firm Baldev Krishan Gupta ... on 30 September, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006(3)ARBLR183(P&H), (2006)142PLR647
Author: Viney Mittal
Bench: Viney Mittal
JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J.
1. This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos.1447 and 1448 of 1998, as both the petitions have arisen out of a common judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal.
2. The respondent Contractor firm M/s Baldev Krishan Gupta, was allotted some work by Housing Board Haryana and its Executive Engineer. A dispute arose between the parties with regard to the aforesaid contract. The matter was referred for arbitration to respondent No. 3 Superintending Engineer. Two separate orders were passed on March 19, 1987 by the Arbitrator, therefore, the contractor filed two separate applications under Section 14 read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, for making the aforesaid awards a rule of the Court,
3. Objections were filed by the Housing Board. It was claimed that the arbitrator had misconducted himself and had given two separate awards although there was only one reference. It was further claimed that the Arbitrator had placed reliance upon certain non-existing facts and had acted with biased mind.
4. The objections filed by the Housing Board were accepted by the trial Court vide its judgment dated May 19, 1988. Consequently, the awards were set aside. Two separate appeals were filed by the Contractor before the learned Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge re-examined the matter. On such re-examination, it was held that the representative of the objector i.e. Housing Board had itself requested to the Arbitrator to pass two separate awards. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it was held by the learned Additional District Judge, that the objection raised in this regard by the Housing Board, was without any justification. Further on merits, the learned Additional District Judge, observed as follows:-
The scenario is like this. There were two separate contracts in respect of two works. One reference was made for arbitration. Even at that time question had cropped up whether there should be two separate references or one reference. Ultimately arbitrator was appointed and one reference was made. The arbitrator on the request of the objectors-respondents gave two separate awards in respect of the two separate work. Even if there was no express agreement it was rather fair and just to pass two awards because there were two separate works. An award can contain more than one parts. The different claims are to be decided separately. It will make the award more intelligible if instead of passing one award containing two parts two separate awards are passed simultaneously. It will not tantamount to misconducting the proceedings by the arbitrator particularly when there is no such set of rules or provisions of law which would operate as a bar against the adoption of such a course." Accordingly, the objection with regard to two separate awards was over ruled.
5. Another objection raised by the Housing Board that the scope of the claim had been permitted to be enhanced, was also rejected by the learned Additional District Judge. It was claimed that originally a claim of Rs. 6.00 lacs was made by the Contractor firm. However, during the proceedings before the Arbitrator, the claim was enhanced to Rs. 7.00 lacs. However, the Arbitrator gave two awards for an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/-and Rs.1,39,000/- only i.e. a total of Rs.2,74,000/-. In this view of the matter, it was held that merely because enhanced claim was made by the Contractor, during the arbitration proceedings, would not vitiate the aforesaid proceedings, inasmuch as the Arbitrator had given the awards, well within the original claim.
6. The third objection raised by the Housing Board with regard to the rate of interest was also dealt with by the learned Additional District Judge. It was held that the Arbitrator could award the interest only upto the date of the award and thereafter, it was for the civil Court to grant further interest. Accordingly, the learned Additional District Judge, allowed the appeals filed by the Contractor and the awards were ordered to be made rule of the Court. It was further directed that the Contractor would be entitled to interest at the rate awarded by the Arbitrator, from the date of awards till the date of decree only, but further awarded a future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decree till realisation.
7. The order dated January 18, 1989, has been impugned by the Housing Board, through the present revision petitions.
8. I have heard Shri P.S. Rana, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri R.K. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the respondent-Contractor and have also gone through the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge. I have also perused the objections raised by the Housing Board in the grounds of revision.
9. In my considered view, there is no merit in these revision petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly observed that firstly the representative of the Housing Board had consented to giving of two awards by the Arbitrator. In view of the aforesaid fact itself, it was rightly held that the aforesaid objection with regard to the giving of two awards, could not be entertained. Further, the learned Additional District Judge, has noticed that since the two separate contracts had been awarded, therefore, it was wholly justified that the dispute with regard to aforesaid two separate contracts be dealt with separately through two separate awards. The enlargement of the claim as alleged by the petitioner has lost relevance in view of the amount awarded by the Arbitrator in favour of the respondent by the two awards.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in these petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed.