Civil Revision. No. 1053 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision. No. 1053 of 2009 Date of decision: 02.03.2009 Haryana State Electricity Board ....petitioner Versus Sh. Pritpal Chopra and another ....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 11.8.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, for setting aside/modification of the award dated 28.2.2006 passed by respondent No. 2, being an incomplete award. As per averments made in the petition, respondent No. 1 was awarded a contract of dismantling and removal of serviceable and unserviceable material in old power house colony, NIT, Faridabad. A dispute arose between the parties, which was referred to the sole arbitration of respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Faridabad, vide order dated 2.4.2004. The jurisdiction of the arbitrator was confined to the following issues: - “1. Whether Sh. Prit Pal Chopra had agreed to idemnify the Haryana State Electricity Board Civil Revision. No. 1053 of 2009 -2- through and idemnity bond executed by him on 5.3.92 in relation to the work of dismantlement and removal of serviceable and unserviceable material of existing 95 nos. residential quarters awarded to Sh. Prit Pal Chopra, Contractor, vide work order No. 24/C dated 2.7.1991 conveyed vide Chief Engineer/Thermal (Civil Mtc. Cell), HSEB, Faridabad Memo No. 1044/CWS/FT-234 dated 2.7.1991? 2. Whether that idemnity bond is part and parcel of the contract agreement executed between both the parties? These issues were held in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in the following terms: - "1. Sh. Pritpal Chopra had agreed to indemnity the erstwhile Haryana State Electric Board through the indemnity bond executed by him on 5.3.92, duly attested by the Notary Public in relation to the work of dismantlement and removal of serviceable material of existing 95 Nos. Residential quarters awarded to Sh. Prit Pal Chopra contractor vide work order no. 24/C dated 2.7.1991 conveyed vide Chief Engineer/Thermal (Civil Mtc. Cell), HSEB Faridabad Memo No. 1044/CWS/FT-234 dated 2.7.1991 as at no point of time during the course of proceedings the respondent contractor was able to prove that he was either forced or coercioned by the claimant deptt. Of furnish the idemnity bond in question or Civil Revision. No. 1053 of 2009 -3- the claimant had fraudulently obtained the indemnity bond from the respondent contractor, since the Non-Judicial Stamp paper were purchased by the contractor Sh. Prit Pal Chopra vide No. 67910 dated 24.12.1992 at his own cost and the indemnity bond executed & signed by him before Notary Public in token of authenticity of his signatures and statement on oath. 2. The said indemnity bond is part and parcel of the contract agreement executed between both the parties as the respondent contractor had furnished the indemnity bond on 5.3.1992 stating therein to indemnity the department for payment of sales tax if the same was levied ultimately upon the department and that this indemnity bond will become part and parcel of the contract agreement which was signed thereafter on N.J.S. Papers purchased by Sh. Prit Pal Chopra vide No. 383 dated 6.4.1992 before the actual commencement of work of dismantlement." The petitioner moved an application under Section 151 CPC in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) with a prayer for issuance of a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide all the issues in dispute, which have not been decided by him. The aforesaid application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 11.8.2008 on the ground that the award has been pronounced and, therefore, in view of the same, the matter cannot be referred to the arbitrator. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Section 33 Civil Revision. No. 1053 of 2009 -4- (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to contend that the Court can give a direction to the arbitrator to decide the left over rival claims of the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this petition. Admittedly, only two questions, as referred to above, were referred to the arbitrator for his decision, which have been answered in favour of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid factual position, nothing is left which was not decided by the arbitrator. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the arbitrator was obliged to give the relief on the basis of the answers given by him to the reference. Under the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 award is executable like a civil Court decree. The petitioner is free to execute the same in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid position, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge March 2, 2009 R.S.