FAO No. 4117 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- FAO No. 4117 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: August 20, 2009 Kulbhushan Gupta ........ Appellant Versus Union of India and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the appellant -.- 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. C.M. No. 19372-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.M. No. 19373 CII of 2009 This is an application for condonation of delay of 265 days in re- filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 265 days in re- filing the appeal is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. C.M. No. 19374 CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. FAO No. 4117 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Main case This is an appeal against the order dated 25.08.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala, whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the 1996 Act') to set aside the Award dated 25.09.2003 has been dismissed. While challenging the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Arbitrator has misconducted, himself, inasmuch as, he was bound to give reasons for all the claims made in the reference as well as was bound to consider the defence raised by the appellant. But the Arbitrator did not consider or give reasons regarding these claims, nor he discussed the evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and after perusing the award, I find that there were only two claims referred to the Arbitrator, which are to the following effect:- Claim No. 1: Minus final bill amount due to cancellation of contract and getting the balance work done at risk and cost of contractor recovery of SCH 'B' stores and compensation etc. on account of compensation for delay incompletion and recovery of non-attending the complaints etc. amounting to Rs.92,000/- revised amount Rs.92,124.74. Claim No. 2: Cost of References Rs.10,000/-. The claims of the Contractor, as submitted before the Arbitrator during hearing could not have been gone into as they were never referred to the Arbitrator. Rather, the Arbitrator would have acted beyond his jurisdiction if he had gone into the claims, which were not referred to for adjudication. As such, no fault can be found with the Arbitrator for not having adjudicated the claims, which were not referred to. FAO No. 4117 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Learned counsel for the appellant while making the second argument submitted that the Arbitrator was appointed after the expiry of the limitation. It was stated that the claim of the Union of India was time barred, as the recoveries were for the year 1993 and the contract was cancelled in the year 1992, but the same was referred to the Arbitrator in the month of March, 2002. This objection was also raised by the appellant in para 3 (iv) of the petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. I do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission on account of the fact that it is apparent from the reply to the petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act that the appellant had submitted his final bill only as late as on 01.12.2000. Recovery of the minus bill was made out from the appellant and it was only, thereafter, that a dispute arose between the parties. As soon as the cause of action arisen, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator. As such, the same is within limitation. Thus, the appellant has not been able to show as to how the same was time barred. No other argument has been raised. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge August 20, 2009 mohan