F.A.O. No. 1273 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 1273 of 2008 Date of Decision: May 12, 2008 Union of India and Others .....APPELLANTS VERSUS M/s Tib Engg. Works and Another .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Ms Deepali Puri, Advocate for the appellants. T.P.S .MANN, J. Order passed by learned District Judge, Jalandhar on 18.12.2007, while declining to set aside the arbitral award dated 1.11.2002, has been challenged by the appellants by filing the present appeal. Pursuant to an order passed by Engineer-in-Chief, Army Headquarters, New Delhi, the dispute which had arisen between the appellants and respondent No.1 was referred to Shri Rajendra Prasad, CSW, Chief Engineer, Western Command, Chandimandir. After going through the pleadings of the parties, learned Arbitrator gave his award on 1.11.2002, whereby different amounts of money were awarded to the Contractor-respondent No.1. The Contractor was also awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount awarded up to the date of award and future interest at the rate of 15% per annum. Though the award was challenged by the appellants before learned lower Court on various grounds, yet at the time of arguments, F.A.O. No. 1273 of 2008 2 only one ground was pressed. It related to interest awarded by the Arbitrator. This argument was finally accepted and the interest awarded by the Arbitrator at the rate of 12% and 15% per annum was reduced to 9% per annum. The award was amended to that extent. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that learned Arbitrator ought not to have made observations against the officials of the Union of India as noted in para 26.1 of the award. I have gone through the observations, as pointed to, by learned counsel for the appellants. The Arbitrator had every right to make such observations / comments while resolving the matter / dispute between the parties, which had been referred to him. These observations were necessary so as to decide the liability of the appellants under the contract entered into with the Contractor. Under these circumstances, no case is made out for expunging the observations /comments made by the Arbitrator in para 26.1 of the award. No other point has been urged by learned counsel for the appellants. The appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed. (T.P.S.MANN) May 12, 2008. JUDGE Pds F.A.O. No. 1273 of 2008 3