FAO No.2361 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2361 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.5.2010 Union of India ..Appellant. Vs. M/s Him Contractors and another ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This appeal is directed against order dated 18.2.2009 passed by District Judge, Gurdaspur by which Objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short `the Act') against the arbitral award dated 20.7.2004 has been dismissed. The only grievance of the appellant is that the amount of demurrage was payable by the Contractor/respondent. The Arbitrator had awarded a sum of Rs.3,25,963/- in favour of respondent No.1 on account of recovery of demurrage from the appellant. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that an affidavit was filed by respondent No.1 on 10.4.1999 to pay the demurrage charges but still the amount of demurrage has been imposed upon the appellant by the Arbitrator. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has FAO No.2361 of 2009 (O&M) -2- submitted that on 7.4.1998 Garrison Engineer 574, Engineer Park C/o 56 APO had written a letter to the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, Ferozepur Cantt., relevant part of which reads as under : “(a) Out of Rs.3,56,010/- a sum of Rs.1,70,235/- to the tune of 60% approximately has already been waived off by the Divisional Traffic Manager (Northern Rly) Jammu Tawi vide their letter Nos. given below:- 1. SJA/WD/JAT/96 dated 12/13.5.97 2. SJA/WD/JAT/96 dated 12/13.05.97 3. SJA/WD/JAT/96 dated 15/16.05.97 4. SJA/WD/JAT/96 dated 15/16.05.97 5. SJA/WD/JAT/96 dated 15/16.05.97 6. SJA/WD/JAT/96 dated 15/16.05.97 7. SJA/WD/JAT/96 dated 30.4.97 8. SJA/WD/JAT/96 dated 30.4.97 9. SJA/WD/JAT/96 dated 30.4.97 10.SJA/WD/JAT/96 dated 30.4.97 11.SJA/WD/JAT/96 dated 02.04.97 12.SJA/WD/JAT/96 dated 02.04.97 13.SJA/WD/JAT/96 dated 02.04.97 14.SJA/WD/JAT/96 dated 02.04.97 15.SJA/WD/JAT/96 dated 02.04.97 16.SJA/WD/JAT/96 dated 02.04.97 17.SJA/WD/JAT/96 dated 02.04.97 (b) A case for the waival of the balance amount left out has already been referred to the Northern Railway HQ Baroda House New Delhi for their final decision but till to date no response has been received.” No doubt there is a letter dated 24.5.1997 and an affidavit by respondent No.1 in which it has been averred that respondent No.1 would pay the balance demurrage charges after the decision of CCONR, New Delhi but no such decision has been placed on record from which it could be inferred that out of remaining 40% amount of demurrage charges which was referred to the Northern Railway, the respondent No.1 was to make the payment. Moreover, nothing has been pointed out about any misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator in order to interfere with the award or the FAO No.2361 of 2009 (O&M) -3- impugned order passed by the District Judge. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 28.5.2010 JUDGE Meenu