STATE OF U.P. Vs. JAI DURGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, preferred by the State under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, is directed against the judgment and order dated 20 -02 -1999 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Haridwar, in Misc. Case No. 6/97, State of U.P. v. M/s Jai Durge in Original Suit No. 5/97, M/s Jai Durge v. State of U.P. and others, whereby the learned Civil Judge has rejected the objection filed by the appeal under Section 30/33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and made the award as Rule of the Court.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts of the case are that Appellant and Respondent entered into an agreement dated 22 -11 -1985 for manufacturing and supplying of C.C. Tiles to the Appellant and the period of contract was from 22 -11 -1985 to 21 -11 -87. It was alleged that Respondent had done only 40% of the work and had left the remaining work due to which the Appellant had to suffer huge loss. Hence, the dispute arose between the parties and as per Clause 35 of the Agreement, the matter was referred to Arbitrator. The Arbitrator issued notices to the parties and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the arbitrator decided the dispute on 02 -01 -1997 and ordered that the Appellant/State will make payment to the Respondent within 30 days. Against the said award dated 02 -01 -1997, the Appellant filed a Misc. Suit before Civil Judge (S.D.) Hardwar. The Civil Judge (S.D.) Hardwar vide his judgment and order dated 20 -02 -1999 rejected the objections made by the State and by excluding Claim No. 4, he has made the award rule of the court. Against the said judgment and order dated 20 -12 -1999, the State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

(3.) LEARNED standing counsel for the Appellant firstly argued that since the Arbitrator Sri Raj Pal Singh, Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department was retired on 31 -7 -1996, hence he was not authorized to work as Arbitrator and to give the award.