IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Revision No. 11 of 2007 WITH Delay Condonation Application Stay Application U.P. State Electricity Board/Power Transmission Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd. Operation and Maintenance Civil Division Roorkee, Through Executive Engineer. ……Revisionist/Defendant. Versus 1. Additional District Judge (U.M.C.) Dehradun. 2. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dehradun. 3. M/s Singhal Construction 26/2 Tilak Road, Dehradun, through Shri A.K. Singhal. .……….Respondent/Plaintiff. Shri N.S. Negi, Advocate, for the revisionist. Shri M.C. Tewari, Brief Holder for respondents No. 1 and 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is delay condonation application for condonation of delay in filing the revision, against the order dated 13.08.1997, passed by Additional District Judge, Dehradun, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1996. 2. Heard Shri N.S. Negi, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist drew attention of this Court to the order dated 01.06.2007, passed by this Court in writ petition No. 1407 (M/S) of 2001 (Old No. 29461 of 1998), whereby the revisionist has been given opportunity to file revision and it is observed that the court was not inclined to entertain as the alternative remedy was available to the revisionist. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist, the application is allowed. Delay is condoned. 5. Also, heard on admission of the revision and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 13.08.1997, passed by Additional District Judge, Dehradun, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1996, whereby said appeal has been dismissed. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist-U.P. State Electricity Board, and the respondent-M/s Singhal Construction, entered into an agreement in which there was an Arbitration Clause, empowering the Chairman of the revisionist Board to appoint an Arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties. Vide order dated 06.07.1992, Chairman of U.P. State Electricity Board, appointed Shri G.P. Singh, as an Arbitrator to settle the dispute, who gave his award on 07.01.1994. U.P. State Electricity 3 Board, filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940, which was registered as Misc. case No. 179 of 1994, before Civil Judge, Dehradun, praying that the award be set aside. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dehradun, vide his judgment and order dated 06.05.1996, rejected the objections. Aggrieved by said order, U.P. State Electricity Board, filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1996, before the District Judge, Dehradun. Said appeal on being transferred to Additional District Judge, Dehradun, was heard by said court, and the same was dismissed. Hence this revision (after writ petition, was dismissed on the ground that the revision could have been filed against the order). 7. The main ground on which the award was challenged by the revisionist, before the courts below is that Arbitrator did not give reasons, while giving the award. Learned counsel for the revisionist could not show me any law, which makes it mandatory for the Arbitrator to give reasons in his award, unless so directed by the person, appointing him. Neither the Arbitration Clause nor the appointment letter of the Arbitrator, required him, to give the reasons for the award. As such, there appears no jurisdictional error or any other material illegality, committed under the Arbitration Act, 1940, on the basis of which this Court can interfere under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 4 8. Therefore, the revision is dismissed summarily. (Stay application also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:09.11.2009 Sweta 5 6 7 8 9 10