CHIEF ENGINEER, HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD AND ANOTHER Vs. PANTAWAS KHURD CO-OP. L&C SOCIETY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, this Court proposes to dispose of above titled three First Appeals against Order, as they arise out of the similar set of facts and involving similar question of law. The appeals have been filed seeking to challenge the impugned judgment dated 17.9.2008 passed by the District Judge, Sirsa, whereby the objection petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for short 'the Act') against the award of the Arbitrator dated 15.8.2006 has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that an agreement was executed between the appellants and the respondents for construction of road from Chakka to Risalia. The work was to be completed within the stipulated period and as per the accepted rates and measurement mentioned in the contract. It is alleged that the work was completed after expiry of the original time period and despite the fact that full payment has been made, the respondents made a representation to the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board for appointment of an Arbitrator. Consequently, an Arbitrator was appointed and the claims were raised by the respondents against the appellants and an award was issued allowing the claim. The appellants filed objection petition before the District Judge, Sirsa, on the ground that the Arbitrator had gone beyond the terms and conditions of the agreement itself and, therefore, the award was not sustainable. It was also submitted that the Arbitrator failed to appreciate Clause 25-A of the agreement, while granting interest to the claimants/respondents. The said clause specifically debarred payment of any interest to the party. However, the same has been allowed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the objection petition has been dismissed in a mechanical manner without appreciating any of the contentions raised regarding the terms and conditions of the agreement not being adhered to. It is submitted that once the parties had agreed that no interest shall be payable, the Arbitrator cannot award interest for the amounts payable to the contract under the contract. In support of the contention, reliance has been placed on the judgments Union of India Versus Krafters Engineering and Leasing (P) Ltd. 2011 AIR SC (Civil) 1805 and Sri Chittaranjan Maity Versus Union of India 2018 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 989.