FAO No. 4822 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Date of decision: August 20, 2009 1. FAO No. 4822 of 2007 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitram Nigam Limited ........ Appellants Versus M/s Indane Cables and another .......Respondent(s) 2. FAO No. 4823 of 2007 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitram Nigam Limited ........ Appellants Versus M/s Indane Cables and another .......Respondent(s) 3. FAO No. 4824 of 2007 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitram Nigam Limited ........ Appellants Versus M/s Indane Cables and another .......Respondent(s) 4. FAO No. 4825 of 2007 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitram Nigam Limited ........ Appellants Versus M/s Indane Cables and another .......Respondent(s) 5. FAO No. 4826 of 2007 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitram Nigam Limited ........ Appellants Versus FAO No. 4822 of 2007 2 M/s Indane Cables and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Briender Rana, Advocate for the appellant Mr. P S Rana, Advocate for the respondents -.- 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 order shall disposed off all the aforementioned connected appeals as common question of law and facts are involved as also that these appeals have arisen from the common order dated 12.09.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after to be referred as 'the 1996 Act') against the Award. However, for the sake of reference, the facts are being taken from FAO No. 4822 of 2007. While challenging the aforesaid order as well as award, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings recorded by the Arbitrator were against the evidence. It is further stated that neither the Arbitrator nor the Additional District Judge, Panchkula noticed or took into consideration the enquiry reports. As such, the Arbitrator has misconducted, himself. Learned counsel for the respondents, while meeting the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, has brought to the notice of the Court Paras 12 and 13 of the Award. Para 13 of the award is reproduced as FAO No. 4822 of 2007 3 under:- “13. Subsequently, a complaint was received by the Nigam in Feb., 2001 alleging that the firm was supplying Sub standard material to the Nigam by tempering seals of the inspected material. The Nigam stopped all payments of the claimant firm and started testing the material supplied by the claimant but made no reference to them nor gave any written notice in this regard. The Nigam set up two committees for this purpose but no reference regarding constitution of the committees or copies of reports were sent to the claimant. No proper reference giving details and specifically asking for participation of the claimant in the investigation process in respect of concerned purchase order was made to the claimant. The material, samples or which were first got tested from quality Marketing Centre, Faridabad by the first Committee of XEN, Stores, Hisar does not pertain to the purchase order under consideration. The samples of the material belonging to the purchase order in question were drawn by the second committee head by SE, Stores and Workshop in absence of the claimant and got tested from IDDC, Ambala Cantt. And form Shri Ram Test House, New Delhi. The test results of both the test houses are at variance with each other. Whereas reports of Shriram Test House show the cable to be having higher conductor resistance and lesser insulation thickness and thus being not up to the specified standard, those of IDDC, Ambala Cantt. Show the cables to be in conformity with the specification which has not been denied by the respondent. On the basis of FAO No. 4822 of 2007 4 reports of Shriram Test House only, the Committee came to the conclusion that the material was not as per specification. Committee have not elaborated reasons for ignoring reports of the other test house, IDDC, Ambala Cantt.” A perusal of the same shows that both the reports were taken into consideration before arriving at the finding and before pronouncing the Award. As such, there is no merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 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