-1- F.A.O. No.4291 of 2010 (O & M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: March 03, 2011. F.A.O. No.4291 of 2010 (O & M). Union of India represented by Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Zone, Garrison Engineer (South), Ambala Cantt.......Appellant Versus M/s. J.D. Builders, 121 Model Town, Ambala City and another ........Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Ms. Kulwant Kaur Kahlon, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 1.5.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, whereby the objection petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and -2- F.A.O. No.4291 of 2010 (O & M). Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short `the Act') against the Award dated 5.2.2008 passed by Mr. Rama Nath, Chief Engineer, (Sole Arbitrator -respondent No.2) was dismissed. As per facts of the case, the appellant had entered into Contract Agreement No.CE CHZ-24 of 1992-93 with respondent No.1 in pursuance whereof respondent No.1 executed the work. However, a dispute arose between the appellant and respondent No.1. In view of the arbitration clause in the Contract Agreement, respondent No.2 was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator passed the Award dated 5.2.2008 whereby he awarded certain sums in respect of the claims raised by respondent No.1. The appellant filed objections under Section 34 of the Act before the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala. Objection petition has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 1.5.2010. Hence this appeal by the appellant. I have heard Ms. Kulwant Kaur Kahlon, Advocate, appearing for the appellant and Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.1 and have gone through the records of the case. The objection petition was filed by the appellant before the learned District Judge, inter alia, on the ground that the Arbitrator had illegally and arbitrarily accepted the claims of respondent No.1 without any evidence and had awarded huge amount against the said claims of respondent No.1 under the various heads. Against Claim No.1, Rs.55,476/- were awarded in -3- F.A.O. No.4291 of 2010 (O & M). favour of respondent No.1 for clearance of Jungle including cutting of trees, bushes etc. According to the appellant, this amount was unreasonable. It was also pointed out by the appellant that sums of Rs.4,07,724/- and Rs.1,05,000/- were awarded by the Arbitrator against Claim No.10 (a) and 10 (b) on account of mud/sand obtained from outside the defence area. However, there was no evidence produced by respondent No.1 before the Arbitrator regarding the transportation of mud / stand from outside the defence area. Another objection raised by the appellant before the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, was that exorbitant interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum had been awarded by the Arbitrator whereas the prevalent rate of interest in the market was not more than 6 per cent per annum. It is well-settled that while hearing objections against the Award, the Court need not re-appreciate the evidence led by the parties before the Arbitrator in order to substitute its own opinion. A perusal of the record reveals that the Arbitrator had afforded reasonable opportunity to the parties to plead their case by producing the evidence they wanted to bring on record. Apparently, there was no illegality or impropriety in the Award given by respondent No.2. Besides, the Award rendered by respondent No.2 was not, in any way, against the public policy. The Arbitrator, after appraising the evidence produced before him, concluded that the delay had occurred in the completion of the contract within the stipulated period on account of delay on the part of the appellant. In view of this, the -4- F.A.O. No.4291 of 2010 (O & M). learned Additional District Judge was justified in dismissing the objection petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act against the Award dated 5.2.2008 passed by Mr. Rama Nath, Chief Engineer, (Sole Arbitrator -respondent No.2). However, insofar as the award of interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum by the Arbitrator on the amount due, the same appears to be on the higher side. Accordingly, it is held that respondent No.1 will be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum instead of 15 per cent per annum as awarded by the Arbitrator and upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed on merits. However, the appellant will be liable to pay interest to respondent No.1 on the amount due at the rate of 9 per cent per annum instead of 15 per cent per annum. ( MOHINDER PAL ) March 03, 2011. JUDGE ak