ANAND ELECTRICAL STORE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There was a contract between M/s Anand Electrical Store through its proprietor, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Contractor'), and Punjab state through the Executive Electrical Engineer, Punjab P.W.D. (B&R), Branch, Chandigarh, (hereinafter to as 'the State of Punjab), which included an arbitration clause. It was agreed therein that in case a dispute arises the same shall be referred for arbitration to the superintending Engineer of the Electrical and Mechanical Circle. When a dispute arose, the Contractor referred the dispute for arbitration to the superintending Engineer of the Electrical and Mechanical Circle, who was at Patiala. The Arbitrator entered into reference and sent notice to State of Punjab through the Executive Engineer. The State of Punjab put in appearance before the Arbitrator and took part in the proceedings. However, the proceedings could not conclude within four months, and, therefore, an application was made to the Court for extension of time, which was a allowed by the Court and time was extended. Within the extended period, the Arbitrator, gave an award on the basis of material produced before him by the parties.

(2.) Thereafter, the Contractor filled an application under section 14 of the Arbitration Act 1940, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Court for directing the Arbitrator to file the award in Court and to make it rule of the Court, because according to the award, the State of Punjab was to pay Rs. 1494.30 to the Contractor. The Court directed the Arbitrator to file the award in the Court. In compliance with the Court's order, the Arbitrator filed the award and the proceedings before the Court. The Court gave notice of the filing of the award to the State Punjab and notice was served on the State of Punjab on 10th March, 1975. On 29th may, 1975 the State of Punjab filed objections against the award and the main objection, with which we are concerned now, was to the effect that the reference was unilateral because the State of Punjab had not joined in making reference to the Arbitrator, and, therefore, the reference was invalid and the Arbitrator did not get any jurisdiction to arbitrator. The objections were opposed by the Contractor who had pleaded that the reference was valid and that the State had taken part in proceedings before the Arbitrator. Since proceedings could not conclude with in the time, extension of time was sought from Court, and, therefore, it could not be held that the reference was unilateral. It was pleaded that the objections were beyond limitation of 30 days and, therefore, deserved to be dismissed.

(3.) On the contest of the parties, issues were framed, out of which the relevant issues are as follows :