1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3844 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 8.7.2010. *** CCS Haryana Agricultural University .. Appellant VS. Shri Gian Chand Baweja & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. ARVIND KUMAR, J. Delay condoned, for the reasons mentioned in the application. The appellant is aggrieved with order dated 6.11.2008 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Hisar vide which objections preferred against award dated 29.11.2007 passed by respondent No.2, have been dismissed. It has come on record that pursuant to dispute arose between the appellant and respondent No.1-contractor in relation to some tender work, the matter was referred to the arbitrator i.e. respondent No.2 with the consent of the parties, who ultimately passed the award dated 29.11.2007. Dis-satisfied with the same, the appellant University preferred the objections, but, as noticed above, the same were dismissed. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the Arbitrator has mis-conducted himself and exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the award and as such, the same is liable to be set aside with acceptance of counter claim of the appellant in toto. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Court below as well as the award dated dated 29.11.2007 and it emerges out from perusal thereof that the contractor sought claim under four heads besides interest on the late payment while the appellant preferred counter 2 claim seeking 10% penalty and an amount of Rs.2,73,204/- as cost of the work got done by it from another contractor as well as interest thereupon. The Arbitrator on appraisal of material produced on record by the parties awarded 75% of the amount claimed under heads 1 and 2 and rejected the claim of Rs.1,14,000/- made under head 4 while awarded the contractor a sum of Rs. 25000/- as compensation towards legal and litigation expenses under head No.3 along with simple interest @ 12% per annum. It is not that the contractor alone was compensated, but the Arbitrator also allowed an amount of Rs.2,73,204/- to the appellant on account of risk and cost of the work got done by the University from another contractor. There is nothing on record from which it can be inferred that the arbitration proceedings were not conducted by the arbitrator in accordance with law by misconducting himself or that the award was passed beyond the scope of agreement. The claims were settled by the Arbitrator on the basis of material on record, which were within its ambit. There is no merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 8,2010 Jiten