SHIMLA v. Shiva Nand Shandil
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ss. 31, 34(3)
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Relief. During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that the instant objections were filed within time, therefore, preliminary objection is not pressed and on issue No.4 it is held that the objections are within time. 3 Learned counsel…
Judgment
The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 . For the appellants: Mr.C.N.Singh, Advocate. For the respondent. Mr.G.D.Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr.B.C.Verma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J (Oral). Award dated 11th May, 2004 passed by the Superintending Engineer (N), H.P. Housing Board, Nigam Vihar, Shimla-171002, has been assailed by the H.P. Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the (cid:145)Board(cid:146)) by filing the present objection petition under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent-claimant not only filed reply to the objection petition but also filed counter claim assailing the award with respect to such claims which have been rejected by the Arbitrator. Based on the pleadings of the parties, on 16th March, 2005 the following issues were framed: 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2
Whether the impugned award is against public policy as alleged in the objection petition, if so its effect?. (cid:133)OPO.
Whether the impugned award is not reasoned as alleged, if so its effect?. (cid:133)OPO.
Whether the Arbitrator was justified in law to have allowed interest from the date of completion of the work and commencement of arbitration proceedings?. (cid:133)OP Non-objector.
Whether the objections are not within time?. ..OP Non-objector.
Whether the objectors are estopped from filing the objection petition, as alleged, if so its effect?. (cid:133)OP. Non-objector.
Whether the counter-claim filed by the non- objector in his reply to the objections under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable?. ..OP Non-objector.
In case issue No.6 is held in favour of the non- objector, whether he is entitled to any amount as claimed in his counter-claim, if so, how much?. ..OP Non-objector.
Relief. During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that the instant objections were filed within time, therefore, preliminary objection is not pressed and on issue No.4 it is held that the objections are within time. 3 Learned counsel for the parties, further prayed that issue No.2 be decided first and if it is found that the Arbitrator(cid:146)s Award is without any reasons, then the matter needs to be remanded back for consideration afresh. On 20th August, 1980, the Board awarded Contract No.4 of 1981 to the Contractor for execution of its work. Thereafter certain disputes having arisen between the parties, the same were referred to the Arbitrator on 30th December, 1996, arbitration proceedings commenced and the award dated 18th September, 1999 was passed. However, in OMP(M) No.30 of 1999 this court set aside the award and remanded the matter back to the Arbitrator for consideration afresh in accordance with law. Thereafter the proceedings commenced and the impugned award was passed against which the Board has now filed the objection petition. Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act requires that the arbitral award shall state the reasons upon which it is based unless the parties agree that no reasons are to be given. On the perusal of the award, it is evident that no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the Arbitrator while adjudicating the claims. I have no hesitation in recording that the Arbitrator has seriously erred in not deciding the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Learned counsels 4 agree that the award be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the concerned authorities for expeditious disposal of the same. Mr.C.N.Singh informs the Court that the matter is now to be adjudicated upon by the Superintending Engineer (Arbitration) H.P.PWD, Solan. The learned counsel for the parties submit that other issues be not adjudicated upon. Ordered accordingly. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator on 30th September, 2008. The record be sent back immediately. Keeping in view the fact that the agreement pertains to the year 1980, the Arbitrator shall endeavour to conclude the proceedings, based on the material already on record, after affording due opportunity to the parties, as expeditiously as possible and not later than 31st December,
Operative part
2008. The appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly. August 27, 2008(R) (Sanjay Karol), Judge.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — ss. 31, 34(3).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 27 Aug 2008. The bench was SANJAY KAROL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.