Civil Revision No. 2917 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2917 of 2002 Date of decision : 14.11.2011. Union of India and others ................ Petitioner vs. M/s Shashtri Construction and another ................. Respondent CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? Present: Shri Anmol Pandit, Advocate for Shri A.K.Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vishal Garg, Advocate forcible Shri Chetan Mittal, Advocate for the respondents. K.C. PURI, J. This is revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.4.2002 passed by Shri R.C.Godara, learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner- Civil Revision No. 2917 of 2002 2 respondents against the judgment and decree dated 9.6.1997 passed by Shri B.C.Gupta, Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that an agreement for the provisions of OTM accommodation at Gurdaspur was entered into between the parties and a dispute arose and Shri Vidya Bhushan respondent No.2 was appointed as an arbitrator to decide the dispute. The arbitrator made the award on 12.9.1995. Thereafter, on the application moved by respondent No.1 under Sections 14(2), 17 and 29 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short – the Act) for making the same rule of the Court. Accordingly, the award was filed in the Court. The respondents- petitioners filed objection petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act alleging that the award was liable to be set aside because the arbitrator has erred in allowing the award against Item Nos.1,2,9,10,13,14, 16 and 25. He has travelled beyond his jurisdiction and committed serious irregularities in allowing such items though in part and therefore, misconducted the proceedings. The award is a non-speaking one. The arbitrator should have discussed the entire documentary as well as oral evidence in the award. He has clubbed all the three controversies while giving the award. The arbitrator has allowed interest @ 12% per annum though there was absolutely no cause against item No.25. 3. On put to notice, respondent No.1 filed reply and pleaded that the objection petition was barred by time and the same did not fall within the ambit of Sections 30 and 33 of the Act. The arbitrator has not committed any error. Denying other averments, respondent No.1 prayed for dismissal of the objections. Civil Revision No. 2917 of 2002 3 4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 4.10.1996 : - 1. Whether the award in question is liable to be set-aside on the grounds taken in the objection petition by the respondents ?OPR 2. Whether the objections have been filed within limitation ? OPR 3. Relief. 5. The parties have led their respective evidence on the aforesaid issues. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh dismissed the objection petition of the objector and made the award dated 12.9.1995 rule of the Court. The trial Court also granted interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount so awarded from the date of award till realizations. 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 9.6.1997, the objector-respondents preferred appear before the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, who vide his order dated 16.4.2002 dismissed the appeal with costs. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgments and orders passed by the Courts below, the present revision petition has been directed by the objector-petitioners. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his arguments to the extent that Award regarding item No.14 in respect of Civil Revision No. 2917 of 2002 4 payment at enhanced rate for working excluded in phase II due to non- completion of work by other agencies/delay in giving the decision was partly allowed to the extent of Rs.69,000/- against the claim of Rs.2,87,500/-. It is further contended that similarly vide item No.16 reimbursement of damage suffered on account of breach of contract by department, resulting in prolongation of contract period has been granted to the tune of Rs.4,66,840/- against the claim of Rs.18,22,808/-. It is further contended that as per clause 11-A to 11-C of the Contract between the parties, no amount in respect of damages can be granted to the contractor. The said amount has been granted against the terms of the agreement and as such the arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings and prayer has been made for setting aside the award to that extent. 10. Learned counsel for the contractor has supported the judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted that objections of Clauses 11-A to 11-C of the Contract, have not been specifically taken in the objection petition under Sections 30 to 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act. The very purpose of arbitration is to curtail the dispute. The arbitrator is not required to give reasoning for allowing or disallowing any amount. The parties have chosen their forum. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that objections are not tenable. So, in these circumstances, the revision petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the records of the case. 12. Union of India i.e. petitioners filed objection petition under Civil Revision No. 2917 of 2002 5 Sections 30 to 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act that the award dated 12.9.1995 in proceedings initiated by the contractor for making the said Award as rule of Court. Union of India preferred objections against the said award. From the perusal of the said objections, it is revealed that grant of amount in respect of item Nos.14 and 16 have been objected by the objectors but it has not been specifically mentioned that in view of clause 11-C of the agreement, no damage can be granted. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that objections are not tenable. The scope of revision in such circumstances is not wide, so as to set aside the concurrent finding unless it is proved on the file that both the Courts below have committed illegality. 13. There is a valid arbitration agreement between the parties and that fact is not disputed. Union of India has chosen to settle their dispute through arbitration. Arbitrator is the none else but the Chief Engineer of the petitioners. The reasoning for grant of any amount for disallowing any amount is not required to be given. The award can be set aside under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act, 1940 only in case the arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings. There is nothing on the file that arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings, what was in the mind of arbitrator, while allowing the claim of the contractor under clause 14 and 16 is not borne out from the record. The arbitrator is not bound to give the reasoning. It is settled law that in case the arbitrator has given the reasoning and that reasoning is against the term of arbitration agreement in that case the award can be set aside. If the Award is without giving any reasoning that can be set aside. Civil Revision No. 2917 of 2002 6 14. In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 15. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE November 14 , 2011 sv