The State of Haryana appealed against an order dismissing objections to an arbitration award. The High Court found the appeal wholly misconceived as the relied-upon contract clause did not exist and dismissed the appeal.
Appeal dismissed; no relief granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
F.A.O. No. 4712 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.12.2015
State of Haryana
… Appellant
Versus
Ved Parkash Mehta Contractor
... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Rawal.
Present: Mr. Vishal Garg, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for appellant.
Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.
Amit Rawal, J. (Oral)
The State of Haryana is in appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the impugned order dated 11.2.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, whereby the objections filed under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside the award dated 25.8.2006 has been dismissed.
Mr. Vishal Garg, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State submits that the only ground which has been raised for adjudication of the present appeal is that the Arbitrator, much less the
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2016.01.11 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
F.A.O. No. 4712 of 2009 (O&M)
2
Objecting Court had not taken into consideration the Clause 25-A(7) of the Contract agreement which envisaged that a sum of ` 92,756/- was required to be deposited by the claimant/contractor. The reasoning assigned by the Objecting Court is contrary to the terms & conditions of the contract and therefore, the objections were within the parameters of Section 34 of the Act.
Mr. Sumit Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that as per the terms & conditions of the contract, which has been handed over during the course of hearing, there is no Clause 25-A(7) of the contract. Thus, the ground raised in the present appeal as well as in the petition filed before the Objecting Court was only misconceived, much less not maintainable and the State of Haryana has been able to obtain the stay of the execution of the award for almost six years and thus, prays that the appeal be dismissed by imposing exemplary costs.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the paper-book and also seen the original terms & conditions of the contract and I am of the view that there is no such clause which is being heavily relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant. In the absence of the Clause and in my view, the objections could not have been said to be within the parameters of Section 34 of the Act and therefore, the Objecting Court has rightly dismissed the objections.
The present appeal has been filed solely on the ground that the Arbitrator has not referred to the aforementioned clause which is not in existence.
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2016.01.11 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
F.A.O. No. 4712 of 2009 (O&M) 3
Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and
circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the order under challenge. The appeal is wholly misconceived and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.
(Amit Rawal) Judge
December 23, 2015
“DK”
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2016.01.11 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the objection to vouching the arbitration award was maintainable under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the objections made by the State of Haryana is liable to be set aside.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Haryana
Ved Parkash Mehta Contractor
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
