PADMINI TECHNOLOGY LTD Vs. JYOTI SARUP MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter was passed over on the first call and adjournment prayed was refused as it was opposed. Even on the second call the counsel for the appellant refuses to argue the appeal. Counsel for the respondent very vehemently opposes the adjournment and says that the hue and cry of compromise talk is urged although no compromise talks have taken place and just a few minutes back some suggestions were given for compromise as a basis to seek adjournment. It is stated that the object of the appellant is to delay and drag the case and not make payments to the respondent under the Award, although, work has been completed long back and the respondent is out of pocket with respect to amounts spent since the year 1997. Since learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant refuses to argue the case, I have heard the counsel for the respondent and am proceeding to dispose of this appeal which is pending since seven years.

(2.) This first appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the order of the court below dated 25.11.2006 dismissing the objections under Section 34 of the Act filed by the appellant herein, respondent in the arbitration proceedings and objector before the court below, against the Award dated 8.9.2004 as per which a decree has been passed against the appellant for payment of Rs. 9,67,425/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from 1.7.1998. Award has been passed with respect to the amount claimed by the respondent herein, claimant in the arbitration proceedings, for construction work of the factory of the appellant done by the respondent.

(3.) The facts of the case are that a contract was entered into between the parties whereby respondent agreed to construct a factory building of the appellant at 23-B, Industrial Area, Shahibabad, U.P. The case of the respondent was that he regularly progressed with the completion of the work but the petitioner/appellant did not make the payment of the running bills. Respondent also complained that time and again work had to be stopped because cheques of the appellant either bounced or the appellant was not making payment. Problem of the bills started from 10th and 11th running bills. The relevant facts in this regard are noted in paras 5 and 6 of the impugned order and which read as under :