HOUSING BOARD HARYANA Vs. BANARSI DASS MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application, filed under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 , the prayer is for extension of time for making the award. Brief facts that have been pleaded to seek the relief aforesaid, reveal that when the revision came up before this Court on 8.6.1991, the following order was passed :

(2.) The Arbitrator entered upon the reference and on 30.9.1991 the time was extended for making the award with the consent of both the parties upto 31.12.1991. Once again on 18.1.1992, the time was extended with the consent of the parties upto 30.4.1992. The proceedings before the Arbitrator reveal that on 14.11.1991, evidence of the claimant-contractor was closed. On 9-12-1991, after hearing the arguments of the contractor, the case was adjourned to 23.12.1991 for arguments to be addressed by the representative of the Housing Board Haryana. On the said date, however, the Executive Engineer of the Housing Board did not attend and later on also on various dates, like 18.1.1992, 6.2.1992, 22.2.1992, 6.4.1992, 27.5.1992 and 4.6.1992 none appeared on behalf of the Housing Board to argue the case. On 27.3.1992, the Executive Engineer requested for postponement of the date of hearing, which was fixed for 6.4.1992. In view of the facts given above, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that unnecessary hurdles have been created for prolonging the litigation and delaying tactics adopted have resulted in expiry of the time fixed for giving the award by the Arbitrator. It is in view of these facts that a prayer has been made for extension of time.

(3.) The Housing Board Haryana has filed reply and by way of preliminary objections, it is pleaded that inasmuch as the revision has since been finally disposed of, time cannot be extended as also that in the present application proforma respondent has not been served. On merits, it is made out that in three separate revision petitions, this Court had appointed Shri K.L. Kapoor, Retired Chief Engineer, as the sole Arbitrator for adjudicating the dispute. He gave separate awards on 23.8.1990 and all the awards were set aside by the trial Court. However, while doing so, the trial Court appointed Shri H.C. Khungar, Superintending Engineer (Retd.) for fresh adjudication in the matter. It is this order, which has led to the filing of the revision petition in this Court. Shri B.N. Rampal Chief Engineer, was suggested to be an Arbitrator by the applicant and the said suggestion was accepted by the Housing Board in good faith taking him to be an impartial person. It is further pleaded that there was some misunderstanding with regard to the address of the Arbitrator, but when identity of the house of the Arbitrator concerned came to the notice of the Housing Board, it transpired that there was some sort of arrangement between respondent No. 1 and his so called special attorney and during the hearing several attempts were made to persuade the Arbitrator to call for the agreement entered into between respondent No. 1 and his special attorney, but the same proved abortive. It is suggested in the pleadings and at the time of hearing it is openly argued by Mr. Jagia that the Arbitrator was not conducting the proceedings in independent manner and was in fact siding with the applicant. It is on the grounds mentioned above, extension of the time has been opposed.