FAO No. 3734 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- FAO No. 3734 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: October 27, 2009 State of Haryana ........ Appellant Versus The Litani Co-operative L and C Society Ltd. & another.......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana for the appellant-State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is an appeal against the order dated 09.04.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge Hisar, vide which the objection petition filed by the State of Haryana under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 1996 Act) against the award dated 18.09.2007 has been dismissed. While challenging the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim No. 1 of respondent No.1 is false, baseless and far from the true facts. As per undertaking dated 14.12.1995 of the applicant, the scope of the work was restricted to three items only which does FAO No. 3734 of 2009 (O&M) 2 not include the supply of stone soling. Respondent No. 1 in his undertaking has already clarified that the balance items, which include this item also be got carried out by the department or through any other means and he will not claim any amount on this account. The learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that in fact 150.70 cum of stone soling was supplied by respondent No. 1 before giving its undertaking dated 14.12.1995. This quantity of stone soling has already been paid for. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 did not supply any stone soling as is clear from the fact that it has accepted the rates, measurement, quantities in the running bill and 9th and final bill. Learned counsel for the appellant is heard. The respondent society had preferred following eight claims:- Claim No. 1 The contractor/ society supplied the stone soling in km. 9.50 to 15.60 km. The respondent paid for only 150 cum. The quantity worth 4250 cum not paid. The rate of the stone soling per quoted rate is Rs.260/- per cum and quantity supplied at the site of work. Rs.11,05,509.00 Awarded Rs.4,06,640/- only FAO No. 3734 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Claim No. 2 The contractor/ society supplied the stone metal 2289 cum in km. 9.50 to km. 15.50. the respondent did not make the entry and also did not release the payments up to till date. The quoted rate of the stone metal is Rs.260/- per cum quantity supplied at site of work. Rs.5,95,192.00 Awarded nil Claim No. 3 Laying of Stone Metal in Km. 9.50 to 15.60 Km. Quantity 2489 cum @ Rs.24.65 per cum. Rs.1,24,296.00 Awarded nil Claim No. 4 Bajri 13.2 mm supplied by the contractor/society at site of work in various km. Quantity 367.50 cum @ Rs.275/- per cum. Rs.1,10,225.00 Awarded nil Claim No. 5 Bajri 11.2 mm supplied by the contractor/society at site of work. Quantity 245 cum @ Rs.275/- per cum. Rs.67,375.00 Awarded nil FAO No. 3734 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Claim No. 6 a) Paving surfacing of road Ist coat in Km 9.50 to 12.60 km. And 14.60 to 15.60 Quantity 245000 sqm @ Rs.189.35 per 100 sqm Extra premium 9.50% above HSR 1988 b) Paving surfacing of road 2nd coat in Km. 9.50 to 12.60 km. And 14.60 to 15.60 Quantity 245000 sqm @ Rs.133.25 per 100 sqm Extra premium 9.50 % above HSR 1988 Rs.46,930 Rs.4,454.00 Rs.32,646.00 Rs.3,096.00 Awarded nil Claim No. 7 The respondent/ department deducted the amount worth Rs.34000/- from the 3rd running bill on the pretext of muster rolls for consolidation work of stone soling Rs,34,000.00 Awarded Nil Claim No. 8 The respondent/ department deducted the amount on account of consolidation of stone soling on various Km. And issued muster rolls and amount was deducted in the 7th running bill of the Society Rs.1,77,812.00 Awarded Nil Roller charges recovered vide 7th running bill Rs.15,990.00 -do- Total Rs.23,17,525.00 FAO No. 3734 of 2009 (O&M) 5 All the aforementioned claims of the respondent-society were rejected except claim No. 1 and awarded amount of Rs.4,06,640/- only against the claim of Rs.11,05,509.00. The aforesaid award has been made after considering the evidence led by the department and as per the rates of the agreement. The same is in accordance with the agreement and after considering the letter dated 14.12.1995. The Arbitrator was a Technocrat and a skilled person of the department, itself, who adjudicated upon the claim No. 1 on the basis of records. Even otherwise, no ground for setting aside the award has been made out. The Court cannot sit in an appeal against the award unless the finding is perverse. No merit. Dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge October 27, 2009 mohan FAO No. 3734 of 2009 (O&M) 6