55 0 tlRlV03003 01 1983 lN THE HlGlf COURT OF PUNJAB 8 CHANIOIGARI CN03003of 1983 IOccidcd on Il 1 2010 1 r O I700d ofIndia Petitioner 0 C5 Vcrsus I Mls DcvaSinghShamSinghand anothcr Z CORAMIONBIE MR JUSTICK KC 1121 I oll resent Mr RajcshGargAdvocatc f01thc pclitioner Mr MunishwarPuri Advocatc for No Z KCPURl Je Ll This is a civil revision pctitionIlIed by thc petitioncragainst the datcd 249l 983 passcdby Icarncd IOistriclJudgcAintitsat vidc which thc appcalprcfcrrcdby thc thc petltioilcragainstlhe ordcr of Shri PGocl Sub JudgeIst Class Amrilsar iho inadc tKc award llile of the Courl vidc udgmcntdatcd 24 121 982 stood disnlisscd holdmgthat theappcalwas not cotnpctenl hc casc ofthc pctitioncrin briefis that a displitcbctwccnMls DcwaSinghShamSinghand I7ood of India hasariscn llle said disputc was rcferrcdto lhc Arbitrator hc Arbtt2itoi Ilad gillcillhc a141ard . Rashmi 2012.08.17 11: 33 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 56 0 c3003 of 1983 2 9 1 1 1 butsubJect to Thoughthc objections Wcrc fllcd controvcrtcd hc issucs wcrc ftamcd he trial Courtlnade the awatd rulc of the Court subjectto the inodiflcation thal the alnount allowcd as quality cut in the itemNo had alreadybccn madc by the objectorCIand the 1 amount of Rs3375024ps clallncd by thc lCl on account of other recoveriesand rcjcctedbythc arbitrator havc nol actuallybccn madebythe 0 C FCI and thcrc is no question ofthc rcfund oflhis amount I C The lcarncd District Judgc aflcr hcaringthc appcalon I objcclionthat the appcalwas not dislnissedthe Z appealbeingnot coinpctcntas therewas no rcsolulionof any kind to prcfer lhe saidappeal r by the aforcsaldordcr thc petitioncr has prefcrred I 08 thc instantrevisionpctitlon Learned counscl for thc pctitioner has subnlittcd that the First m Z Court has disinissedthc appcalonlyon thc groundthat theappeal has not been prcfcrrcdby a compctcntperson 1n fact thc appealWllS prefcrrcdby 10istrict Manager Cl on thc authorizationof cornpetent officer Thc lirst Appellate Court should have allowcd thc applicalion under order 41 Rulc 27 CPC to provc thcsc facts lhal acl of the District Mnagcr in filingthc appealstandsratiOcd o supporlthis conlcntion learncdcounscl for the hasrclicd uponauthorilyUnitcd 13ankof India vs Narcsh Kumar and others 1199616 SupremeCourt Cascs 660 On the strengthof said authorityIcarncd counsel for thc CVIStOn ISl has subnlittcd lhat thc rcvlsionist should nol bccn on . Rashmi 2012.08.17 11: 33 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 57 0 C11103003 of 1983 1 dee 1 thcgroundoftcchnicalitics Learned counscl for thc No 2 has submittedthat the Districl Manager 1S not conlpctentto Olc lhe appealIt has not bcen mcntioncd ln thc grounds 01 rCVISlon lhat acl of District Managcr m hasbcen ratilied bythc Aulhority r Lcarncd counscl for thc pctitioncrhas rcl icd upoil authority 0 0 Garib Chand vs Municipal Committee Budhlada 1979 Plel 565 and I 9 RSA No1923 of 1997 titlcd as The Puniab State Klectricil Board and I others vse Mls Sachdeva and sons and on thc strcngth of thc samc it has Z been arguedthalappealhas not becn fl Icd by a coinpctcnlperson and the same 1S rcquircdto bc disinsscd on lhc grounclof It iS I furlhcr contcndcd lhal in a casc of IlC IlsclO this Court in Food otj Corporation of lndia VS Dhani Ram rcported I ll 200431Puniab Law Reporter248 has held that District Managerbcingnot thc principal0Hlcer 7 Z lS not coinpetcntto fllc theappcaland thc said appcalwas dismisscd being m not inaintainablcbythis Courl On mcrits it has bccn argucdlhal cvcn iI thc case is rclnitlcd back thereis nothingwrong in thcjudgnlcntpasscdby Shri PKC7oel the then Sub JudgcIst Class Amritsar vidc which lhc award has bccn madc rulc of the Courl lt lbnlitted that thc arbitratlon award was passcdas back as on 224 1978 The sanlc WE1Smaderulc 0fthc Court on2411982 Thc arbitrator has not misconductcd thc Undcr thc old Ilrbitration Act thc alvard of thc arbitrator can bc sct asidc onlv on thc basisofthc provisionsincnlioncd uildcr Scctions 30 to 33 No ground1S inadcoul f7r scttingasidc thc award hc Icarncdcounscl for t pctitioloci . Rashmi 2012.08.17 11: 33 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 58 P 0 4211103003of 1983 4 was askcd to pointout lhc grounds for scttingasidcthc award but on the of thc Court counscl Ior thc rcvisionisl could not pointout 1 anything Thc ArbitrationAct hasbecn cnactcd Ivith lhc idca to dccidc thc dispuIcs b73twcen lhc partics at an carlydatc Thc Parliamentin its wisdom has laid down lhc crilcria and grounds on which C thc award 0 f thc arbitratorcan bc sct asidc 1vcn on inquiry lcarncd 0 0 counselfor thc pctitioncrcouldnot pointoul any groundfor setting aside thcawardin qucstion hc parlics arc thcir claiins f01lhc Iast C5 than30 ycars andlhc anlount awardcdcannot bc said to bc on highcr more Z sidc The arbitratorhas conduclcd1hc n accordanccwrithtlle tr C Rulcs No doubt nobodyshould bc condemncdon tcchnicalilicsbul the fact 4rr I rcmains whcn thc rcvisionist has not a goodcasc for trial in lhat case 08 lhc casc back to thc l7irstAppcllalc Court would bc an cxcrCISC er 7 ln futility Z So far as rcliancc of Icamcd counsell7rthc rcvisionislon an tl In United Bank of Indias case Isupral rcgarding ratiOcation ls conccrncd lcamcd counsel for thc rcvisionist has fair cnough lo concede 4 that in the groundsof rcvision it is nowherc lncntioncdthat the act of District Managcrin fllingthc appcalhas bccn ratiIIcd by thc compctent 1 authoritySo thc authoritylJnited 13ankof Indias case supral ls llOt 7 hclpfulto thepctitioncr 1t is not disputed duringthc coursc of argumcnlslhat District Managcrin hls own powcr wasnot Illc apjocal and lhcrc 1S llO resolutionin his avour him lo Olc thc said appcalagainstthc . Rashmi 2012.08.17 11: 33 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 59 0 CRl03003 011 1983 5 r dated24121982 videwhichthc award hasbeen Court This Court in authority Food Corporationof India vseDhani Rams case lsupral relating to the lCl itsclf held that thc DistrictManager 1 lS not competentto file the appcaland only RcgionalManagerwas C to filc the appealand thc rCVISlOn pctitionin that 0 C casewas dismissed I This Courl ltl RSA No923 0f 1997 titlcd as The Puniab 0 I Statc Electricitv Board and others case lsupralhashcld thatappcalOled Z by person is not maintainablc In view of the abovediscussion thc rcVlSiOn petitionstands C dismissedwith costs 05 A copy of this Judgmcnt bc sent to thc trial Court for strict r compliancc 7 Z 1 m JUDGE Januaryjll 2010 Sv 0 e 4 1 L LJ 0 . Rashmi 2012.08.17 11: 33 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document