C.R. Nos.4029-31 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.08.2010 1. C.R. No.4029 of 2006 (O&M) Union of India …Petitioner Versus M/s Haryana State Cooperative (L&C) Federation Ltd. …Respondent 2. C.R. No.4030 of 2006 (O&M) Union of India …Petitioner Versus M/s Haryana State Cooperative (L&C) Federation Ltd. …Respondent 3. C.R. No.4031 of 2006 (O&M) Union of India …Petitioner Versus M/s Haryana State Cooperative (L&C) Federation Ltd. …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- C.R. Nos.4029-31 of 2006 (O&M) -2- Present: Mr. G.S. Babbar, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. In all these revision petitions identical questions are in- volved and parties are same, hence, all the three petitions are being disposed of together by this common judgment. 2. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 C.P.C. challenging the judgment passed by the learned trial Court dated 27.02.1996 as well as judgment passed by the first Appellate Court dated 15.02.2006. 3. Brief facts of the present case inter-alia are that petitioner herein had invited tenders for the construction of Navodaya Vidya- laya at Titram; ultimately contract was awarded to the respondent; dispute arose between the parties during the execution of the work as the petitioner rescinded the contract; respondent accordingly in- voked the arbitration clause and matter was referred for arbitration to Sh. V. Nainani; learned Arbitrator passed the award dated 1.10.1993; copy of the award was served to both the parties; respondent herein filed the application under Section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act, C.R. Nos.4029-31 of 2006 (O&M) -3- 1940 for making the above said award as rule of the Court; petitioner herein preferred objections against the award before the learned trial Court at Chandigarh; before the learned trial Court award was chal- lenged on two grounds that Arbitrator have misconducted himself while passing the award against the petitioner and Court at Chandi- garh have no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the case at Chandigarh; either Kaithal Court or Court at Ludhiana have territorial jurisdiction; learned trial Court dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner herein challenging the award and made the award rule of the Court vide judgment dated 27.02.1996; an appeal was preferred against the judgment of the trial Court which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 15.02.2006; hence the present revision petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that constructions were raised under the contract at Titram District Ludhiana, hence, application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act should have been filed in the Civil Court, Ludhiana or alternatively; since office of the petitioner herein situated at Kaithal, hence, appli- cation under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act could have also been filed before the Kaithal Court but in any case application under Sec- tion 14 of the Arbitration Act was wrongly filed in the Court of Sub- Judge, Chandigarh which has absolutely no territorial jurisdiction over the matter. C.R. Nos.4029-31 of 2006 (O&M) -4- 5. Learned Appellate Court while placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Koopilan Uneen’s daughter Pathumma and others versus Koopilan Uneen’s Son Kuntalan Kutty dead by LRs and others, reported in A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 1683 as well as on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Gurmit Kaur and another vs. Dhanto reported in 1987(2) PLR 290 has held that there was no failure of justice even if matter was heard and decided by the Chandigarh Court, hence, learned trial Court has committed no illegality while hearing and deciding the case at Chandigarh. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Koopilan Uneen’s daughter Pathumma (supra) in paragraph No.3 has held as under:- “3…..That provision is contained in sub-sec- tion (1) of Section 21 of the Civil P.C. which runs thus: ……..In order that an objection to the place of suing may be entertained by an ap- pellate or revisional court, the fulfillment of the following three conditions is essential: (1) The objection was taken in the Court of first instance. (2) It was taken at the earliest possible op- portunity and in cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement. (3) There has been a consequent failure of justice. C.R. Nos.4029-31 of 2006 (O&M) -5- All these three conditions must co-exist. Now in the present case conditions Nos.1 and 2 are no doubt fully satisfied; but then before the two appellate Courts below could allow the objection to be taken, it was further necessary that a case of failure of justice on account of the place of suing having been wrongly selected was made out. Not only was no attention paid to this aspect of the matter but no material exists on the record from which such failure of justice may be in- ferred.” 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner on being repeatedly asked is not able to point out that failure of justice has occurred by reason of suing at Chandigarh. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to how petitioner suffered adversely before the Chandigarh Court. Moreover, having received the copy of award, pe- titioner herein did not opt to file his objections against the award ei- ther before the Ludhiana Court or before the Kaithal Court but filed the same before the Chandigarh Court. 8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that neither this is the case of failure of justice nor this is the case where petitioner herein suffered or petitioner’s in- terest was adversely affected while hearing the case before the Chandigarh Court. C.R. Nos.4029-31 of 2006 (O&M) -6- 9. Learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court have re- corded concurrent findings of fact that Arbitrator has not miscon- ducted while passing the award. Learned first Appellate Court while placing reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the matter of President, Union of India vs. Kalinga Construction Company Pri- vate Limited reported in 1971, Supreme Court 1676 and M/s Su- darshan Trading Company vs. The Government of Kerala and another reported in 1989 Supreme Court 890 has held that it is not open to the Court to probe the mental process of the Arbitrator and speculate where no reasons are given by the Arbitrator as to what impelled the Arbitrator to arrive at his conclusion. 10. In the opinion of this Court, while hearing the objections under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, learned Courts below are not supposed to sit as Appellate Court to reassess the evidence and ma- terial placed before the Arbitrator. 11. In view of the above, no interference is called for. Revision petitions are devoid of merit, hence, are dismissed. 12. A photocopy of this order be placed on files of connected cases. ( ALOK SINGH ) 06th August, 2010 JUDGE ashish