CR No.2433 of 2003 - 1 - In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 22.07.2010 State of Haryana ... Petitioner Versus Sita Ram Bansal and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.RS Kundu , Addl.AG, Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr.RK Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral) This revision is directed against the order dated 11.01.2003 passed in Appeal No.156-CA of 2001, by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, whereby the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, has been dismissed. A dispute arising out of an agreement executed in respect to the work for construction of Vocational Training Institute at Rakhi Shahpur, came to be referred to the Arbitrator in accordance Clause 25 (a) of the agreement between the parties. The Arbitrator made and published his Award dated 21.11.1996 and filed the same in the Court on 07.11.1997. An application was moved for making the award rule of the Court. Notice of this application was issued to the respondents. Objections to the Award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, came to be filed challenging the Award. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- CR No.2433 of 2003 - 2 - 1.Whether the Award is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the application? OPA 2. Relief. After allowing the parties to lead their respective evidence, the learned Trial Court decided the main issue i.e. Issue No.1 against the petitioner herein and made the Award rule of the Court vide his order dated 22.09.2001 and the objections filed by the objectors were dismissed. The appeal preferred by the Executive Engineer and another before the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, also resulted in dismissal in terms of his order dated 11.01.2003, impugned herein. The only ground which seems to have been raised before this Court and was pressed before the learned Courts below is that the award is non speaking. It is settled principle of law that an Award under Arbitration Act is not required to be a speaking or a reasoned Award unless there is specific condition in the agreement or there is a direction of the competent Court. In the present case, there is no such requirement of passing a speaking Award. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 22.07.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/ NO