IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4693 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 30, 2010 Punjab State …Petitioner Versus M/s Parmar Construction Company and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. S.K. Bhanot, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. Alok Singh, J. State has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 15.04.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, as well as, judgment dated 15.04.2009 passed by leaned District C.R. No.4693 of 2009 Judge, Jalandhar, whereby objections filed by the petitioner herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), were dismissed. The brief facts of the present case are that vide agreement No.8 of 1993-94, the construction work of submersible bridge 9 span of 10 meter each clear over East Bein crossing link road from Jamsher Chachowal, Hardopharala, Raipur, Autholi and Hadiabad in District Jalandhar, was allotted to respondent No.1. As per the agreement, respondent no.1 applied for arbitration. The Superintending Engineer, Circle PWD B&R Jalandhar Cantt. was appointed as Arbitrator in terms of the agreement. An award was announced by the Arbitrator on 14.01.1998. State has filed objections under Section 34 of the Act, challenging the award mainly on the ground that Arbitrator has wrongly allowed simple interest, at the rate of 15% per annum on award amount after one month from the date of award till the realization of the payment, beyond the provision of Contract Agreement. It has further been contended in the objection that the award is not self- speaking award and the reasons given by the Arbitrator to allow claims to respondent no.1 are not sound. It has further been contended that award of Rs.1,09,039/- for wet 2 C.R. No.4693 of 2009 sinking of wells is not justified. Both the Courts below have dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner herein. While exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India, this court is not supposed to re-appreciate the evidence. Power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can ordinarily be exercised only when this Court finds jurisdictional error or any such manifest error of law which resulted in vitiation of the proceedings. Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the Punjab State, could not point out any jurisdictional or legal error in the judgments impugned herein. I am not inclined to invoke my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. September 30, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3