GYANENDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh, where the objection petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') for setting aside the award dated 09.08.2011 has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts need to be noted are that the appellant applied for adoption of "VIKALP SCHEME" floated by the Health Department of Haryana for adoption of BPL families and he was allowed the same. As per the scheme, the appellant had to open private dispensary/hospital to provide health services to the families allotted to him by respondents No.1 to 3 in the area allocated to him. The appellant had not to charge anything for such services from the families but the prescribed amount had to be paid to him by respondents No.1 to 3. The appellant had to execute the agreement dated 31.01.2007/01.02.2007 in this regard. On account of work done, there was a dispute with regard to the payment. The appellant served legal notice in this behalf, which was responded to by the respondents inter alia admitting the claim of the appellant, but deferring a part of the payment on account of financial constrains and accord of the budget. The matter was referred to the arbitration of respondent No.4, who gave his award dated 09.08.2011 partly allowing the claim of the appellant. The appellant herein challenged the said award by filing objection petition under Section 34 of the Act, which came to be dismissed by an order dated 25.11.2014 by the Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh, which order has been impugned in the instant appeal by the appellant.

(3.) Mr. N.C. Kinra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argues that the appellant has been denied fair trial of the matter, as such, the award passed by the Arbitrator is not sustainable. It is submitted that the Arbitrator did not consider the documents submitted to him, as the same were detached from the Arbitration file. It is contended that the award dated 09.08.2011 is based on irrelevant material, surmises and conjectures. It is submitted that the Addl. District Judge has erred in affirming the award without any cogent and convincing material to do so. It is also argued that reply of the respondents to the legal notice has been ignored and excluded from consideration by the Arbitrator as well as by the Addl. District Judge. It is also contended that the Arbitrator of his own divided the services into four segments, whereas, there was no such agreement to allow splitting of the services to be rendered by the appellant.