EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BATHINDA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 3973 of 2003 and 3974 of 2003 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts have been taken from Civil Revision No. 3973 of 2003.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 - Vijay Kumar Contractor was allotted work of polythene lining of Abohar Branch (Lower) RD-7000-7500 by the petitioner vide agreement dated 10.1.1995. The dispute arose between the parties and on a suit filed by respondent No. 1, an Arbitrator was appointed. The Arbitrator passed an award on 30.9.1999. The Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 3,50,750/- to the contractor against claim No. 1 and a sum of Rs. 65,570/- against claim No. 2 and besides this, he also awarded simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum on claim No. 1 w.e.f. 10.2.1995 and on claim No. 2 w.e.f. 10.4.1995. The Arbitrator also awarded interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the awarded amount plus interest thereon from the date of award till the date of payment. Claims No. 3 and 4 were not adjudicated by the Arbitrator on the ground that the same had not been referred to him. The contractor filed an application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short "1940 Act") for making award rule of the Court and passing a decree in terms thereof. Notice of the said application was issued to the petitioner-State who contested the application by raising preliminary objection that the application was not maintainable. The State contested the award on merits as well by raising various objections and according to the State, it could not be made rule of the Court. The contractor by filing rejoinder controverted the objection of the State. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :

(3.) THE learned trial Court while deciding issue No. 2 noticed that the Arbitrator was appointed on 31.5.1999 and he passed the award on 30.9.1999. The proceedings of arbitration Ex. R are of 16.8.1996 when 1996 Act had come into force and 1940 Act had been repealed. In view of Sections 35 and 36 of 1996 Act, the civil Court held that the award passed by the Arbitrator being final, the same could be enforced as a decree. Since there is no provision for making this award rule of the Court and passing decree in terms of the award under 1996 Act, the application was dismissed as not maintainable.