Civil Revision No. 2366 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.11.2010 (i) Civil Revision No. 2366 of 1991 The Haryana State Electricity Board .....Petitioner Versus M/s Som Dutt Builders Pvt. Ltd. ….Respondent Present: Shri Neelesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent. (ii) Civil Revision No. 2602 of 1991 M/s Som Dutt Builders Pvt. Ltd. .....Petitioner Versus The Haryana State Electricity Board ….Respondent Present: Shri Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Neelesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 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? HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Civil Revision No. 2366 of 1991 has been filed by the Haryana State Electricity Board (for short `HSEB’) against the order passed by the Civil Revision No. 2366 of 1991 2 Additional District Judge, Karnal on 6.5.1991, whereby the order dated 9.3.1989 passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Panipat, making the award of the Umpire dated 29.8.1985 as `Rule of the Court’, was upheld with modification in respect of setting aside of grant of pendente lite interest, while maintaining grant of future interest @ 12% p.a. Civil Revision No. 2602 of 1991 has been filed by the Som Dutt Builders Pvt. Ltd. (for short `the Contractor’) claiming pendente lite interest, which was granted by the learned trial Court, but set aside by the learned first Appellate Court. Since both the revisions arise out of the same award and against the same orders, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common order. Learned Civil Court appointed Shri A. Sagar, Retired Member (Technical) of the Haryana State Electricity Board, as an Umpire on 3.9.1981 in respect of the disputes between the parties. The Umpire has given award dated 29.8.1985 in the following terms:- “1. I award Rs.11,01,382/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs One Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Two) in favour of SDB against HSEB. 2. None of the parties shall have any other claim, claims/counter claims against each other in respect of the above. 3. All bank guarantees by SDB in connection with the said work shall stand satisfied / discharged.” The Contractor has filed a petition under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, to pass judgment and decree in terms of the Award of the Arbitrator. The HSEB filed objections to the Award, inter-alia, on the Civil Revision No. 2366 of 1991 3 grounds that the same is illegal, invalid, unjust and that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself as he did not visit the site before announcing the Award. The learned trial Court dismissed the objections filed by the HSEB and made the Award as Rule of the Court by granting pendente lite and future interest @ 12% p.a. In appeal, the learned first Appellate Court found that the HSEB failed to establish that at the time of inspection of spot on 21.8.1983, the Umpire had not seen all the works or that he had refused to see those works and to notice the defects and incompletion which the representatives of the HSEB wanted him to examine. The first Appellate Court upheld the order of the trial Court with the modification in respect of setting aside of grant of pendente lite interest, while maintaining grant of future interest @ 12% p.a.. Learned counsel for the HSEB has vehemently argued that the procedure adopted by the Umpire was unknown to law and the said procedure has caused serious prejudice to the rights of the HSEB. I do not fine any merit in such argument raised by the learned counsel for the HSEB. Once the parties have agreed to resolve their disputes by way of arbitration, it is open to the Arbitrator and/or Umpire to adopt the procedure, he may consider appropriate, as such Arbitrator/Umpire is the mater of facts. The parties have consented to the arbitration. Having consented to resolve their disputes by way of arbitration, the parties cannot be permitted to challenge the procedure adopted by the Arbitrator before announcing the Award. On the other hand, Shri Sudhir Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that once the trial Court has granted pendente-lite Civil Revision No. 2366 of 1991 4 interest, the Arbitrator could not have set aside such grant of interest, in exercise of the Appellate jurisdiction. The learned Arbitrator has not granted interest for the period, the proceedings were pending before it. In Secretary, Irrigation Department Government of Orissa v. G.C. Roy, (1992)1 SCC 508, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Arbitrator has power to award interest pendente lite. Since the Arbitrator has not granted any interest for the period, the matter remained pending before it, the Court could not award interest while making such Award as Rule of the Court under Section 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Court has the discretion to award interest from the date of the order and not for the period anterior to the order passed by the Civil Court. In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise if its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, both the petitions are dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 17.11.2010 Poonam (II)/ds