BUDHI SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment Sub-Judge, First Class, Kullu, in case No.187/71 and 186/71 decided on 1-12-1973 thereby dismissing the objections of the appellant for setting aside the award given by the Arbitrator in the disputes between the parties.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the appellant executed contracts for felling-rolling, logging and loading of timber of Timber Extraction Division, Kullu. THEse agreements were executed on 26-12-1970. THEre arose disputes between the parties regarding the amount due for the execution of the works in question. Consequently, Shri B. S. Parmar, who was Conservator of Forests in the Department of Forests, Government of Himachal Pradesh, was appointed as the Arbitrator with the consent of the parties on 8-1-1972. THE Arbitrator proceeded with the matter. He was to determine as to how much work was done by the appellant and what payment was due to him. THE arbitrator was to decide the matter after giving the parties an opportunity for placing their cases. THE award was submitted on 23-2-1973. THE appellant was awarded Rs. 2307.40 for 1660 cft. of logs that were washed away in the flood and thus loss at the rate of Rs. 1.39 per cft. for felling, logging and rolling etc. THE appellant was further allowed Rs. 1676.22 for the felling and logging charges of 3991 cft. of logs that were lying in the forests at the rate of Rs. 0.42 per cft. and Rs. 12242.16, the cost of 29148 cft. of logs buried in the debries. THE appellant did not agree with the award and filed objections thereto on 28-3-1973 and raised number of objections. Out of them, the principal objection was that his witnesses Karama Durje and one Mohinder Singh Block Officer, who was in charge of the forest, were not examined. THE second objection pertained to the behaviour of the Arbitrator in siding with the department and accepting their courtesies.

(3.) SHRI Lokender Thakur, vide SHRI M. G. Chitkara, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has reiterated those very objections against the award that had once been raised before the Court at Kullu. Before proceeding further to examine the same, it is necessary to quote the provisions of S. 30 of the Arbitration Act :