C.R. No. 6907 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6907 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:-08.12.2011 M/s A.A. Enterprises ...Petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RITU BAHRI J. This revision petition is against orders dated 15.06.2011 and 21.11.2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala and Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Patiala whereby the objections of the M/s A.A. Enterprises (for short 'petitioner-firm') as well as award dated 18.04.1997 have been dismissed. Vide award dated 18.04.1997 (Annexure P-4) passed by K.S. Dhillon sole Arbitrator/member in a dispute between petitioner-firm and respondent-Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala arising out or one purchaser order NO. H-10661/Q-3509/P.O.V dated 05.05.1994. In the award the arbitrator held that the petitioner-firm was responsible for 15 MT Copper strips and not for 25 MT of Copper strips. The arbitrator further held C.R. No. 6907 of 2011 (O&M) -2- in its award that the petitioner-firm was at fault for non-supply of 7.353 MT material and the penalty levied by the respondent-Board was held to be fully justified for non-replacement of defective material weighing 3761.700 kg. The arbitrator further held that the petitioner-firm is responsible for the supply of defective material and penalty on this account is leviable. The petitioner-firm was directed to pay Rs.3,06,178.92 on account of failure on the part of them to supply the balance quantity of 7353 kg of copper strips to the respondent-Board. The petitioner-firm made an application before the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn) Patiala and prayed that a direction be given to respondent No. 2 to cause the filing of the award. The petitioner-firm filed objections against the award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. However, the objections were dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn) Patiala vide his order dated 21.11.2001 and the award passed by respondent No. 2 was made the rule of Court (Annexure P-5). Purchase order-cum-contract dated 05.05.1994 was placed by respondent No. 1 on the objector/appellant firm for the supply of 15 M.T. of Copper strips. According to the said purchase order, the material was to be supplied by respondent No. 1 between 21.07.1994 to 21.11.1994. The respondent supplied only 7646.95 kg of copper strips in three lots out of which material weighing 3761.700 kg supplied in the third lot was found to be detected at the time of inspection in PSEB stoves/w/shop. No dispute existed between respondent-claimants regarding the supply of material in the first two lots of C.R. No. 6907 of 2011 (O&M) -3- 2.191 MT and 1.8000 M.T made on 24.5.1994 and 11.6.1994 respectively. The material before their dispatch was got inspected by the claimant through Inspection/satisfaction and on the tests conducted in the authorized Lab i.e M/s Sunbeam Castings, the material was cleared by the Inspecting Officer to be dispatched to the claimants. Like the first two lots, the third lot of 3,761 M.T was inspected by the Executive Engineer of the Clients namely Sh. S.L. Midha (report dated 20.08.1994. The subject material was duly tested by M/s Sunbeam casting (vide their report dated 19.08.1994) and certified it to be O.K. The dispatch was done by the respondents after the clearance on 22.08.1994 by the claimants. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the award dated 18.04.1997 is illegal, null and void and non binding upon the rights of the petitioner-firm and is liable to be set aside. He has submitted that respondent No. 2 has rightly held that the petitioner-firm was responsible for the supply of 15 MT of Copper Stripes and not for 25 MT. However, respondent No. 2 has wrongly held that the petitioner-firm is at fault for non-supply of 7.353 MT material for which he did not make sincere efforts despite of repeated requests by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has wrongly fixed the liability of the petitioner-firm to pay the amount of Rs. 3,06,178.92/- for risk purchase. He has further submitted that the Arbitrator had misconducted the proceedings and has failed to consider the documents placed on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner-firm has submitted that the award of the Arbitrator is liable to be set aside as none C.R. No. 6907 of 2011 (O&M) -4- of the conditions mentioned in Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, are made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner-firm has not been able to prove any Act or mis-conduct which could be attribute to the Arbitrator. His only contention is that 18% interest has been wrongly passed by the Arbitrator. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-firm has no force, as the award was passed in the year 1997 and as prevalent rate of interest, 18% has been rightly awarded. No ground is made out to interfere in the award dated 18.4.1997. Accordingly, civil revision is dismissed. 08.12.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE