STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARDYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by

(2.) HARDYAL, the respondent, entered into a contract with the State of Punjab, Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads Branch) for the construction of certain bridges and culverts on the Mukerian-Naushehra Road. The agreement between the parties was evidenced by a writing. The written agreement contained an arbitration clause which provided that dispute, if any, between the parties would be referred to the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads), Jullundur Circle. It appears that no period was fixed in the agreement of reference for giving the award and therefore period of four months as prescribed in Clause 3 of the First Schedule attached to the Arbitration Act would be the statutory period for giving the award. <PG>631</PG>

(3.) THE arbitrator gave his award against the respondent on 28/04/1961, but after the expiry of the prescribed period. It is, however, admitted by the respondent that he participated in the proceedings before the arbitrator even after the expiry of the statutory period. THE respondent challenged the award by filing an objection under S. 30 of the Arbitration Act on a number of grounds. On the pleas taken by the respondent the Senior Sub-Judge framed the following four issues : (1) whether the objections were premature, (2) whether the arbitrator had misconducted himself or the proceedings, (3) whether the award was against natural justice, and (4) whether the award was made after inordinate delay.