CR No. 6253 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6253 of 2009 Date of Decision: 30.10.2009 Municipal Committee, Narwana ....Petitioner. Versus Dharampal ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate for the caveator-respondent AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the dismissal of the objection petition filed by it challenging the award dated 22.11.1999 by the Additional District Judge, Jind vide order dated 16.9.2009 has approached this Court by way of the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the aforesaid order. The primary challenge made by the petitioner in the present revision petition is that the appointment of the Arbitrator by the Deputy Commissioner, Jind was without jurisdiction and, therefore, the award passed by him was liable to be set aside. CR No. 6253 of 2009 -2- On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order impugned herein. The lower court had recorded that the Arbitrator, namely, Shri G.C. Singla, Superintending Engineer, PWD (B&R) was appointed in terms of Clause 24 of the agreement executed between the parties who gave his award dated 22.11.1999 in favour of the respondent. The petitioner in furtherance to the appointment of Shri G.C. Singla, the then Superintending Engineer, PWD (B&R Branch), Jind had participated in the arbitral proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any material on record to substantiate the plea that the appointment of Arbitrator was not legal. Further, the learned Additional District Judge, Jind, while rejecting the objection petition, in para 10 of his order impugned herein, had recorded as under:- “10. ........ In the case in hand, the award was passed on 22.11.1999 and the objections were filed on 5.10.2002 which is clearly barred by limitation. Not only this, a perusal of order dated 13.3.2002 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind in execution petition No. 6 of 27.5.2000 titled as Dharam Pal Vs. Municipal Committee reveals that objections were filed by the objector Municipal Committee, Narwana against the award dated 22.11.1999. Objections dated 23.2.2000 were dismissed being not maintainable. A perusal of file further depicts that against this order JD/objector filed CR No. 6253 of 2009 -3- civil revision no. 2881 of 2002 in the Hon'ble High Court. A perusal of order dated 27.5.2002 passed by the Hon'ble High Court depicts that the revision was dismissed. Objector/JD has no right to challenge the award dated 22.11.1999 again by way of filing the present objections. From the evidence adduced on file by the objector, there is nothing to prove that any party to the arbitration proceedings was under some incapacity or that arbitration agreement was not valid and that party making the application i.e. JD/objector was not given proper notice of appointment of the arbitrator or arbitral proceedings or otherwise was unable to present the case. A perusal of arbitration file reveals that copy of letter dated 5.3.1997 was forwarded to the President of Municipal Committee, Narwana by the Deputy Commissioner, Jind whereby the Deputy Commissioner sent the letter of request of the contractor Dharampal to S.E. PWD, B and R, Jind for decision. Proceedings further show that Sh. Ashok Kumar clerk of Municipal Committee, Narwana on behalf of JD participated in the proceedings. In addition to him, Sh. Harish Kumar JE also participated in the proceedings and order dated 3.11.1997 reveals that when no one was present on behalf of the Municipal committee before the arbitrator intimation about the next date of hearing CR No. 6253 of 2009 -4- was sent to the Municipal Committee, Narwana by the arbitrator. Proceedings dated 28.11.1997 reveals that Harish Kumar JE on behalf of the objector admitted that full opportunity for producing oral as well as written documents were given to both the parties by filing the proceedings. Even on 7.7.1999 statement of Mahabir Singh Parokar on behalf of the Municipal Committee was recorded. On 13.7.1999 Pale Ram JE made statement on behalf of Municipal Committee, Narwana before the arbitrator. Again on the adjourned dates Pale Ram JE on behalf of the objector appeared. On 20.10.1999 statement of Sh. B.B. Bhardwaj Secretary was recorded by the arbitrator in arbitral proceedings. Thus from the perusal of arbitration file, it is clear that due and proper opportunity of hearing was given by the arbitrator. There is no evidence of the objector that the arbitral award dealt with the dispute that was beyond scope of the submissions to the arbitrator. Ground that arbitrator mis-conducted himself and awarded compound interest is no ground to challenge the award. Arbitrator was appointed as per Clause 24 of the agreement executed between the parties. Thus, from the above discussion, it is held that award is legal and valid and is binding on the parties.” CR No. 6253 of 2009 -5- In view of the above and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, no ground to exercise its jurisdiction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. October 30, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE