LAWS(P&H)-1999-5-77

STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DARSHAN SINGH AHUJA

Decided On May 18, 1999
STATE OF PUNJAB Appellant
V/S
DARSHAN SINGH AHUJA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision filed by the State of Punjab against order dated 23-2-1998 passed by Shri Jag Nahar Singh, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Chandigarh in Arbitration Case No. 96 of 1-12-1997/24-2-1998. State of Punjab v. S. Darshan Singh Ahuja and another. The State of Punjab approached the Court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Chandigarh with the prayer that the dispute referred to respondent No. 2, Arbitrator at the behest of respondent No. 1, S. Darshan Singh Ahuja, Contractor to decide his claim under the contract taken by him from the construction Division SYL Canal Project SAS Nagar be recalled and set aside. This application for revocation of the authority of the Arbitrator-respondent No. 2, Shri S. S. Mongia, Chief Engineer (Retd ). came up for hearing before the learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class on 23-2-1998 and the same was dismissed by the impugned order.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision, may briefly, be narrated as under :

(3.) A perusal of Clause 62 aforesaid will go to show that the contractor can file his claim before the Executive Engineer who will consider the same, give instructions or decision in writing within a period of 30 days after being requested and in case the contractor is dissatisfied with the instructions or decision of the Executive Engineer he can file an appeal, within 30 days of the receiving of any instructions or decisions of the Executive Engineer, before the Superintending Engineer who shall allow an opportunity to the contractor of being heard and give his decision thereon within 60 days. Clause 62 further provides that if the contractor is dissatisfied with the decision of the Superintending Engineer he may within a period of 30 days from the communication of the decision shall indicate his intention to refer the dispute to arbitration failing which the decision aforesaid shall become final and conclusive. The arbitration clause is contained in Clause 63 which has also been extracted in the same judgment by the learned Sub-Judge, inter alia, as under :