Civil Revision No.3088 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3088 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision 11.02.2011 Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Sector 6, Panchkula ...... Petitioner VERSUS M/s A.D.Builders and another ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.J.P.Bhatt, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Aman Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: This petition assails the judgment dated 31.01.2009, passed by the District Judge, Sirsa, whereby the award dated 04.02.1994, passed by the Arbitrator was made the rule of the Court. The factual background of the case is that there was an agreement dated 24.04.1991 between the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Sirsa (herein referred as 'the petitioner') and M/s A.D.Builders, House No.39, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh with regard to the construction of the road from Peerkhera to Bhagsar. A dispute arose between the parties, therefore, in pursuance of the agreement, Sh.D.R.Kapoor, Superintending Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak, was appointed as Arbitrator, who after undergoing the formalities and hearing the parties, passed the award on 04.02.1994 and the operative part of the said award is as under:- Civil Revision No.3088 of 2009 2 “After going through the arbitration proceedings, record and submissions/arguments made by both the parties, it has been inferred that M/s A.D.Builders had to face financial hardship as there was delay in releasing his due payments during execution of the work. Moreover, departmental road roller and RCC hume pipes for construction of culverts which were required to be supplied to the executing agency as per contract agreement were also not arranged by the field staff. The defendant's contention for sufficient payment being due to the agency for the item of earth filling executed at site but not measured & entered in the measurement book seems convincing. But, in the absence of documentary proof nothing is being allowed against this claim and other claims also. Therefore, M/s A.D.Builders cannot be held responsible for non-completion of the work. The action of the Board under clause-II & III of the contract agreement being not maintainable is set aside and consequently claims of the Board are also rejected. Award of Rs.50,065/- (Rupees fifty thousand and sixty five only) is made in favour of M/s A.D.Builders, Chandigarh against counter-claims filed by the defendant agency towards refund of security and litigation charges. The payment of the awarded amount should be made by the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board within 90 days failing which interest @ 12% per annum will accrue from the date of award.” Thereafter this award was challenged by the petitioner-Board by way of suit but the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, dismissed the same vide judgment dated 23.03.2002. However, in terms of the orders dated 04.04.2005 (Annexure P-6), passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.4316 of 2002, which was further modified vide order dated 20.04.2007, to the extent that the entire case file was to be sent to Distt. Judge Sirsa, the case was transferred to the Court of Distt. Judge, Sirsa. The learned Distt. Judge, Sirsa, vide impugned judgment dated 31.01.2009 made the award Civil Revision No.3088 of 2009 3 dated 04.02.1994 finally, the rule of the Court. Arguments heard. Record perused. Having heard the rival contentions, no fault could be found with the passing of the award. The District Judge, Sirsa has duly appreciated the evidence and the objection petition filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that actually the award was passed for a sum of Rs.50,065/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum but the District Judge, Sirsa, while accepting the petition, committed an error while making it to be Rs.1,00,130/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 04.02.1994. Having heard this contention, the same finds merit. If we go through the award, it is apparent that Sh.D.R.Kapoor, Arbitrator, passed the award to the tune of Rs.50,065/- i.e. Rs.40,065/- on account of refundable security and Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges. It also awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of award i.e. 04.02.1994. However, District Judge, Sirsa, doubled the amount while adding the amount awarded by the Arbitrator on the two heads, as such the impugned judgment needs modification to that extent. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the judgment that the award, as passed by the Arbitrator is correct and accordingly the respondents would be entitled to the tune of Rs.50,065/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of award. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 11.02.2011 mamta-II