CR No. 1833 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 1833 of 2008 Date of Decision: 20.7.2009 Union of India ....Petitioner. Versus M/s Aggarwal Construction Company and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this revision petition filed by the Union of India, challenge is to the order dated 20.5.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala, whereby the award dated 17.3.1992 passed by respondent No.2 was made rule of the court in Arbitration Case No. 5 of 1992 and also the order dated 23.8.2006 whereby the Additional District Judge, Ambala, has affirmed the order of the trial court. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that work contract bearing CA No. GE (S) A-82/86-87: Provision of Modification and Improvement to existing Water Supply System in JCOs/OR at Ambala, was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.1. A dispute arose between the parties with regard to the work contract and CR No. 1833 of 2008 -2- the dispute was referred to an Arbitrator as there was an arbitration clause in the agreement. The parties put their respective claims and the Arbitrator-respondent No.2 vide award dated 17.3.1992, awarded a sum of Rs.1,82,970.18P to respondent No.1 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of award till the date of payment. Respondent No.1 filed a petition before the trial court for making the award rule of the court and the said petition was contested by the Union of India by filing an objection petition. The trial court framed issue – “whether the award dated 17.3.1992 given by the Arbitrator-respondent No.2 is liable to be set aside for the reasons given in the objection petition filed by U.O.I.”, and decided the same in favour of respondent No.1 herein. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 20.5.2004 made the said award rule of the court. Feeling aggrieved, the Union of India filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Ambala which dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 23.8.2006. Hence, the present revision petition by the Union of India. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. The solitary contention raised by the learned counsel for Union of India is that the delay in completing the project was attributed to the claimant/contractor and, therefore, no amount claimed by the contractor under claim No.9 could have been awarded by the Arbitrator. He states that the objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed by the courts below illegally. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant- respondent invited the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of CR No. 1833 of 2008 -3- RW1-Pawan Kumar Aggarwal, wherein, he had stated that the period for construction was extended by the Government from time to time as the delay was on the part of the Government. He further argued that in view of the aforesaid statement of the witness, there was no error in the orders passed by the courts below. He further drew the attention of this Court to para 10 of the judgment of the lower appellate court, which reads thus:- “10. After hearing both the sides and perusing the Lower Court file carefully, I am of the considered opinion that there is no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The original award and proceedings conducted by the arbitrator are available with the Lower Court file. A perusal of the same would show that due opportunity was given to both the parties to put forth their claim and opportunity of hearing was also given. It was, therefore, that the award in question was rendered. The learned arbitrator has not awarded any amount to respondent no.1 more than the one claimed by him before the arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator has considered item-wise claim of respondent no.1 and has judiciously awarded the claims to respondent no.1 which are much below the ones claimed by respondent no.1. There is nothing to show that the arbitrator has misconducted himself or has exceeded his jurisdiction. The learned Arbitrator accorded full CR No. 1833 of 2008 -4- opportunity to both the parties for representing their case. A perusal of the award in question goes to show that the same was rendered after due application of mind. Certain claims of respondent no.1 were declined by the learned Arbitrator and some of the claims of respondent no.1 were reduced which goes to show due application of mind. The learned Arbitrator was a technical person and was appointed by the appellant as the sole Arbitrator. The scope of the court to interfere with the award is very limited and the Court is not to sit as a Court of appeal over the conclusions arrived at by the Arbitrator and give its own opinion on the factual matrix. Apparently, there is no illegality in the award in question on the face of the record and, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the same. The learned Trial Court considered every aspect of the matter and made the award rule of the Court. Therefore, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgment recorded by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, findings recorded by the learned trial Court on issue No.1 are affirmed.” In view of the above observations, no illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the orders passed by the courts below which may warrant interference by CR No. 1833 of 2008 -5- this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. July 20, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE