Civil Revision No. 1015 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1015 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: February 17, 2010 State of Punjab and another ...... Petitioners Versus H.S.Chahal Engineers & Contractors ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab petitioners. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the respondent-caveator. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against order of the learned Appellate Court allowing the appeal of the respondent-caveator and granting interest for the pre-reference period (from the date of submission of notice till the date of appointment of arbitrator) at the rate of 18% instead of 16% which was granted by the Court. The respondents had undertaken some work for the petitioners and, since necessary payments were not made, had submitted notice for appointment of arbitrator on 7.3.90. By order dated 20.07.93 the arbitrator was appointed who ultimately gave an award in favour of the petitioners and granted them interest at the rate of 18% for this period. Objections were filed by the petitioners to the application for making the award rule of Court. The learned trial Court by a Civil Revision No. 1015 of 2010(O&M) 2 detailed analysis of the applicable law dismissed the objections but reduced the interest to 6% even for the pre-reference period. The respondent- caveator filed an appeal claiming that the interest which had been awarded by the arbitrator should have been maintained. The learned Appellate Court after analysis of the entire law applicable accepted the appeal. Learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the order of the trial Court was not liable to interference. I am not impressed with this argument. It would be seen that the respondent-caveator after notice had to approach a court for the appointment of arbitrator. There is no justification for the petitioners not to have appointed an arbitrator immediately when the application therefor was submitted to them. It cannot be lost sight of that the arbitrator(who was the departmental Chief Engineer) had awarded interest . It is beyond dispute that Courts do not sit in appeal against the award of the arbitrator unless there is a material irregularity in the award . It is not the province of the Court to substitute its own opinion. Concededly as per the agreement in question the arbitrator had the power to award interest. In this view of the matter finding no merit, this revision is dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 17, 2010 sunita