Dismissed

(O&M) the Punjab State Coop Supply v. M/S Satish Kumar Contractor Pvt. Ltd.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Feb 2010CR/2908/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an arbitrator's award. The court held that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding time extensions and the validity of soil testing were conclusive, and no material was provided to establish misconduct or extendable delay.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

(O&M) the Punjab State Coop Supply… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CR No.2908 of 2001 : 1:

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶3

Date of decision: 08.02.2010

¶4

The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited and another

¶5

... Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s.Satish Kumar Contractor Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

¶9

Present: Mr.Dinesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶10

PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral):

¶11

On the strength of an arbitration agreement between the parties, i.e. the Contractor and the government, the dispute inter-se arising out of the agreement came to be referred to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator made and published his award on 7.8.1997. The Contractor i.e. the respondent herein filed an application under Sections 14 and 17 read with Section 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for making the award rule of the Court. The petitioners have objected to the award making rule of the Court.

¶12

The Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh, who is seized of the proceedings, framed the following issues:-

¶13

CR No.2908 of 2001 : 2:

¶14

Whether the objection petition is liable to be accepted? OPP

¶15

Whether the objection is estopped by the act and conduct for filing the objections petition? OPR

¶16

Whether the objection petition has not been filed by the proper person? OPP

¶17

Relief.

¶18

All the issues were taken up together for consideration after allowing the parties to lead their respective evidence. The learned Civil Judge vide his order dated 10.09.1999 decided the issues against the present petitioners and ordered the award to be made rule of the Court.

¶19

Simultaneously, the objection petition was dismissed. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Chandigarh. The appeal also resulted in dismissal vide order dated 16.03.2001 by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh. It is against the aforesaid order that the present revision petition has been filed.

¶20

In the present revision petition the challenge is two folds: (i) that the Arbitrator has made his award beyond the period of four months prescribed without seeking any extension in time and that (ii) the Arbitrator mis-conducted by getting the soil tested from a private organisation.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

I have perused the orders impugned in this revision

¶23

CR No.2908 of 2001 : 3:

¶24

petition. There is clear and categoric findings by both the learned Courts below that the present petitioners had been extending the time before the Arbitrator not only by participating in the proceedings and even in writing. The last extension was on 11.8.1997 and the award was made and published on the same date. No material has been placed on record in the present revision petition to rebut the findings of fact in any manner either from the record of the Arbitrator or otherwise. These are the findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below on the basis of evidence.

¶25

Regarding second question of soil testing, it has also been recorded that the petitioners herein never raised any objection before the Arbitrator against the formation of the Committee for taking the samples at site and also the testing by the Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College, Ludhiana. It has also come on record that the Executive Engineer admitted that he could not attend the site because of some unavoidable circumstances. In any case, these are the findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below. The award can only be interfered with if the Arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings. No material has been placed on record to establish any kind of misconduct. There is concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Court below which is not desirable or permissible to interfere in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. No question of law is involved in the present writ petition.

¶26

CR No.2908 of 2001 : 4:

¶27

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶28

08.02.2010 BLS

¶29

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶30

Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO

(O&M) the Punjab State Coop Supply v. M/S Satish Kumar Contractor Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) the Punjab State Coop Supply v. M/S Satish Kumar Contractor Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Dalbir Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Pale Ram and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Nachhattar Singh Anr. Vs Kashmira Ram

Milap Chand Vs State of Haryana

Pritam Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.