Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 248 (PNJ)

Punjab State v. V. K. Sood And Company

2006-02-01

HEMANT GUPTA

body2006
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the orders passed by the Courts below, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner under Sec.30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as `the act) were dismissed and the award was ordered to be made Rule of the court. 2. The disputes between the parties were referred to an Arbitrator in pursuance of the order passed by the learned District Judge, Ropar on 17.8.1990 after the revision against the said judgment was dismissed by this Court. The Arbitrator has given his award on 11.12.1991 finding that hire charges amounting to Rs.79384/- have been recovered in excess from respondent no.1. 3. Though the learned trial Court has found that the objections filed by the petitioner were not verified nor supported by an affidavit but the said question is not relevant in as much as both the Courts have examined the contentions raised by the petitioner as to why the award was not required to be made Rule of the Court. The sole argument raised before the Courts below was that in terms of Clause 43 of the agreement, the decision of Superintending Engineer is final in respect of hire charges of the machinery or equipment provided by the Govt. Therefore, such final decisions cannot be made subject matter of arbitration in terms of Clause 63 of the agreement. 4. Both the Courts have found that the question whether the disputes between the parties were required to be referred to the Arbitrator or not have attained finality in view of the judgment passed by the learned district Judge on an application under Sec.20 of the Act, which order has attained finality with the dismissal of the revision petition by this Court against the said judgment. Therefore, the same questions cannot be permitted to be raised by the petitioner again. Once, the petitioner has raised objection that the disputes were not referable to the arbitration in terms of Clause 63 of the agreement and such argument has not found favour with the Court in the proceedings under Sec.20 of the Act, it is not open to the petitioner to raise dispute again to contend that the award is liable to be set aside on the said ground. 5. 5. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may require interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.