Partly allowed

Superintending Engineer and Another v. M/S Aman Engineering Company

Uttarakhand HC1 Apr 2013AO/614/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand condoned a 92-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court subsequently dismissed the appeal summarily, noting it lacked force as the impugned interim award was upheld by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Delay condonation application allowed; Appeal dismissed summarily.

Superintending Engineer and Another Vs M/S Aman Engineering… — Arbitration | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Delay Condonation Application No. 13920 of 2012 Stay Application No. 13921 of 2012 Misc Application No. 2614 of 2013

¶3

¶4

Appeal From Order No. 614 of 2012

¶5

Superintendent Engineer, 12^th Circle

¶6

Public Works Department, Pauri

¶7

Executive Engineer, Construction Division

¶8

Public Works Department, Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal

¶9

……………...... Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

M/s Aman Engineer Company 945, Master Colony, Brahamapuri Meerut (Uttar Pradesh)

¶12

……….......….Respondent

¶13

Shri R.C. Arya, Standing Counsel, present for the appellants.

¶14

Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.

¶15

This is Delay Condonation Application No. 13920 of 2012 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶16

¶17

(3) Heard and perused the affidavit filed by Pooran Chandra, Executive Engineer Construction Division Public Works Department, Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal. No objection filed on behalf of the respondent even after service of notice. Delay of ninety two days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Delay Condonation Application No. 13920 of 2012 stands allowed.

¶18

(4) Also heard on admission and perused the judgment and order dated 21.06.2012, passed by District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in Misc. (Arb.) Case No. 13 of 2006 whereby said court has dismissed the application/objection moved by the appellants under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for setting aside the award dated 12.06.2006 given by the arbitrator.

¶19

(5) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was a contractor in connection with construction of a road (Dehal Chauri-pauri), and an agreement was signed for the same with the appellants Public Works Department. In terms of the arbitration clause, arbitrator was appointed under section 11 (5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 vide order dated 04.12.2004. In pursuance to said appointment Shri P.K.Sharma Retd. Chief Engineer conducted the arbitration proceedings

¶20

¶21

and after hearing and considering the evidence adduced by the parties gave its award dated 12.06.2006. Said award was challenged by the appellants of Public Works Department of the State. However, the grounds mentioned in the application (as mentioned in the impugned order) were found not covered under grounds mentioned in sub section (2) of section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, except as to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal with regard to which the trial court has observed that the same was constituted after hearing both the parties by the High Court. The trial court has discussed all the issues raised by the State at length before rejecting the objections raised against the award.

¶22

(6) Therefore, this appeal has no force. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed summarily.

¶23

(Prafulla C. Pant, J.)

¶24

Dt.01.04.2013

¶25

N.P

Superintending Engineer and Another v. M/S Aman Engineering Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Superintending Engineer and Another v. M/S Aman Engineering Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joga Ram Vs State of Uttarakhand

Smt. Deepa and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand

Om Prakash Joshi and Another Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sanjay Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand

Manohar Lal Vs Balesh Prasad Jain

M/S Vision Metal Aids Pvt.Ltd. and Another Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation and Another