KARAM SINGH LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) In respect of a contract entered into by the appellant and respondent nos. 1 and 2, certain disputes having arisen, the arbitration clause was invoked and the disputes were referred to Col. P. K. Garg for adjudication. He published an award on 13.6.1985. Thereafter, when the same was to be made a decree of the court, respondent nos. 1 and 2 contested the same in the court of the learned senior sub-judge and the learned senior sub-judge, by an order made on 9.4.1991, remitted the award to the sole arbitrator for reconsideration. Thereafter, the same was referred to another sole arbitrator col. M. S. Sahota to adjudicate the said disputes. Col. M. S. Sahota re-examined the matters and gave his award on 3.2.1994 on various items including a sum of Rs. 916.26p. under claim no. 4 for unlawful recovery of compensation and another sum of Rs. 32,907. 00 under claim no. 5 as damages due to prolongation of the work on account of default on the part of the department, in respect of which certain objections were raised by the respondents when the said award was sought to be made the decree of the court. The learned civil judge (senior division) , amritsar who heard the objections, rejected the same and made the award the rule of the court. He also granted interest at the rate of 6% from the date of award till the realisation of the amount on the application moved by the appellant under section 29 of the Arbitration act,1940. The matter was carried in appeal by the respondents to the additional district judge, who partly allowed the same and set aside the award of arbitrator with reference to claim no. 5 amounting to Rs. 32,907. 00. In reaching this conclusion, the learned additional district judge adverted to clause 11 of the contract. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the arbitrator has mis-construed clause 11 (c) of the contract which does not permit for grant of compensation and the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction and thereby mis-conducted himself. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

(3.) In the present case, the award made by the arbitrator is not a speaking award. The arbitrator, after setting out the preliminary information in regard to reference, stated that he heard and examined the matter and made the final award. He referred to the claim in the award that he has passed but no reasons were set out in the award.