STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CHANDPUR CONSTRUCTION DIVISION SYL CANAL PROJECT, PUNJAB Vs. PHOOL CHAND SATYA PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Punjab has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 6.9.1993, passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Rupnagar, vide which the objections filed by the State were dismissed and the award dated 22.1.1990 was made rule of the court and accordingly, a decree for recovery of Rs. 17,77,350/ - was passed in favour of the petitioner/Contractor (respondent No. 1 herein) and against respondent No. 1 (appellant -State herein). The future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of award till the date of realization of the decretal amount was also awarded to the petitioner/Contractor (respondent No. 1 herein).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the State of Punjab invited tenders for 22.2.1983 by notice of publication on 7.1.1983 for construction of SYN Canal at RD 20 kms. to 22 kms. The petitioner/Contractor before the lower Court i.e. M/s Phool Chand Satya Pal (respondent No. 1 herein) submitted the lowest rates and accordingly, the work of construction was allotted to it. Thereafter, a dispute arose between the parties and respondent No. 2 was appointed as a Sole Arbitrator, vide letter dated 9.3.1989. Respondent No. 2 passed the award dated 22.1.1990 and on 30.1.1990, the petitioner/Contractor (respondent No. 1 herein) filed a petition in the Court for making the award rule of the court under the Arbitration Act, 1940, as applicable then (in short '1940 Act'). However, the State of Punjab filed the objections under Section 30 of the 1940 Act. It was stated in the objections that the Arbitrator has ignored the pleadings, evidence and arguments. The said award is based on surmises and conjunctures. A specific ground was taken that the Arbitrator has discarded the very relevant pieces of evidence. He has misconducted the proceedings and has not applied the mind and has not observed the principles of natural justice.

(3.) THE learned Senior Sub Judge, Rupnagar, framed the issues and after recording the evidence of both the parties, the objections of the State were dismissed and the award was made rule of the court.