Megh Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Rajesh Garg, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent no. 1 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Dispute between petitioner-Contractor and respondent no. 1/State of Haryana was referred to respondent no. 2/Arbitrator who made award dated 15.1.1993. Respondent no. 1-State filed application under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short, the Act) for making award rule of the court. Petitioner-Contractor (respondent no. 1 in the trial court) appeared and filed objections alleging that impugned award of the Civil Revision No. 5910 of 1998 -2- Arbitrator is no award being non-speaking one. It was also alleged that the Arbitrator misconducted himself and the proceedings and the award has been procured improperly by the State. The Arbitrator failed to consider the entries contained in measurement book which could reveal that the work stood completed by the Contractor.

Accordingly, the Contractor prayed that the award be set aside. State by filing reply to the objections controverted the averments made by the Contractor. Learned trial court vide judgment dated 23.1.1996 dismissed the objections filed by the Contractor and made the award of the Arbitrator rule of the court and passed decree accordingly. First appeal preferred by the Contractor has been dismissed by the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 18.9.1998. Feeling aggrieved, the Contractor has filed this revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) to challenge judgments and decrees of both the courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Under the Act, there was no requirement that the Arbitrator had to make reasoned or speaking award. Consequently, the award of the Arbitrator is not vitiated merely because it is non-speaking.

Civil Revision No. 5910 of 1998 -3- No other ground has been pleaded by the Contractor in the objections except reproducing the language of the Act to challenge the award that the Arbitrator misconducted himself and the proceedings and that the award has been illegally procured. However, there is no averment in the objections in support of this plea as to how the Arbitrator misconducted himself or the proceedings and how the award was procured improperly. There is also no material in support of the said contention. Counsel for the petitioner contended that entries in duplicate measurement book of the State were not correct. However, no such plea was even raised in the objections. Consequently, the same cannot be entertained. Even otherwise, the court while deciding the objections under the Act against award of the Arbitrator does not sit as court of appeal to re- adjudicate the matter on merits.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below do not suffer from irregularity, illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 CPC. The objections preferred by the Contractor-petitioner against award of the Arbitrator have been rightly dismissed by the courts below and the award has been rightly made rule of the court and decree passed Civil Revision No. 5910 of 1998 -4- accordingly. The revision is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. October 19, 2012 'dalbir' ( L.N. Mittal ) Judge