CR No.4805 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CR No.4805 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.08.2010 M/s. Sky Highway Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus The Reliable Agro Engineering Service Pvt. Ltd. etc. ....Respondents. CR No. 4811 of 2010 (O&M) M/s. Sky Highway Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. etc. ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. P.S. Poonia, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Alok Singh, J. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgement dated 23.4.2008 passed by the Additional Civil JUDGE, Senior Division, Jalandhar, CR No.4805 of 2010 2 judgement dated 3.6.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar and the arbitration award dated 20.11.2001 passed by respondents No.2. In nutshell, facts of the present case are that respondent No.1 entered into a hire purchase agreement with the petitioner in respect of bus make Tata Model 1984, bearing registration No.PAB-101 for hiring the vehicle to respondent No.1. Respondents No.3 to 5 stood guarantors for the re-payment of the amount. Under the terms and conditions of the said agreement, in case of dispute, matter was to be referred for arbitration. Dispute arose between the parties as respondent No.1 and the guarantors failed to pay the amount due under the agreement. An application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 1940 Act) was moved before the Additional Civil Judge, Jalandhar. The Additional Civil Judge, Jalandhar vide judgement dated 11.12.2000 referred the dispute to the arbitrator, namely, Mr. Yash Pal Khanna, advocate. The arbitrator entered into the reference as per the judgement of the Additional Civil Judge, Jalandhar dated 11.12.2000. Petitioner herein preferred an appeal against the judgement of Additional Civil Judge, Jalandhar, dated 11.12.2000 referring the matter to the arbitrator. In appeal, interim stay was granted against the order dated 11.12.2000. However, ultimately appeal was dismissed vide judgement dated 10.11.2001 passed by the District Judge, Jalandhar. The arbitrator passed an award of Rs.16,33,605/- as on 10.2.2001 and future compensation on delayed payment at the rate of 18% p.a. with effect from 11.2.2001 till the realization of the amount, in favour of the petitioner and against the guarantors. The award of the arbitrator was challenged by the petitioner. CR No.4805 of 2010 3 Before the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalandhar, it was registered as Arbitration Case No.10 of 2001. Before the Additional Civil Judge, it was averred by the petitioner that the award is ex-parte and the petitioner was not aware about the proceedings before the arbitrator, and further, on the ground that the arbitrator has misconducted himself while passing the award in favour of respondent No.1. The Additional Civil Judge vide judgement dated 23.4.2008 dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved from the judgement of the Additional Civil Judge, dated 23.4.2008, an appeal was preferred before the District Judge, Jalandhar, which was later on transferred and heard by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. The Appellate Court vide judgement dated 3.6.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein. Feeling aggrieved from the judgement of the Additional Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge Jalandhar, refusing to set aside the award, petitioner has preferred present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the award is ex-parte. No notice was issued by the arbitrator to the petitioner before entering into the reference. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the arbitrator has misconducted himself while passing the award and the arbitrator has granted compensation to the petitioner beyond the agreement. It is further contended that arbitration agreement is not legal. Legality of the agreement was also challenged before the Civil Judge in an application under Section 20 of the 1940 Act. However, finding the arbitration agreement legal and binding between the parties, the Civil Judge vide judgement dated 11.12.2000 allowed the application and referred CR No.4805 of 2010 4 the matter to the arbitrator Mr. Y.P. Khanna, advocate. Appeal against the judgement dated 11.12.2000 has already been dismissed vide judgement dated 10.11.2001, hence in the opinion of this Court, the issue of legality of the agreement already stood decided against the petitioner and it cannot be reopened in the present petition. Undisputedly, the arbitrator after entering into the reference as per the directions of the Additional Civil Judge dated 11.12.2000, issued notice to the present petitioner and thereafter, the present petitioner filed a stay application before the District Judge for the stay of arbitration proceedings, in appeal challenging the order of the Additional Civil Judge dated 11.12.2000. The District Judge vide order dated 17.1.2001 directed that the arbitrator shall go on with the arbitration proceedings, but final award shall not be passed. Moving stay application before the District Judge against the arbitration proceedings pursuant to the reference made by the Additional Civil Judge vide order dated 11.12.2000, itself shows that the petitioner was aware about the arbitration proceedings. It cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware about the arbitration proceedings before the arbitrator appointed by the Additional Civil Judge, Jalandhar vide order dated 11.12.2000. It seems from the judgement of the District Judge as well as the Additional Civil Judge, Jalandhar that point of misconduct of the arbitrator was raised only on the ground that the arbitrator proceeded with the award without any notice to the petitioner. No other ground of misconduct was argued before both the Courts below. Now, at this stage, petitioner cannot be permitted to allege, for the first time, that arbitrator has awarded some amount beyond the agreement. CR No.4805 of 2010 5 Petition is misconceived and hence is dismissed. A photocopy of the order be placed on the file of connected case. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 06.08.2010 sk.