Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2006
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 11 Sep 2006
- Bench
- VINOD K SHARMA
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr.H.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for respondentNo.1. **** VINOD K. SHARMA,J.( ORAL ) C.M.No.24295-CII of 2005 The present C.M.has been filed for staying the operation of the impugned order. The counsel for the parties are agreed that the main case be taken up for hearing. Accordingly, the main case is taken on board for hearing. C.R.No. 3683 of 2003 Heard. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated
19.4.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Bathinda dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940 and making the award rule of the Court. C.R.No. 3683 of 2003 -2- Prima facie present revision is not maintainable as the order passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Bathinda was appealable and the State did not opt to file any appeal. Mr. H.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab contended that the present revision petition is competent as the whole proceedings are without jurisdiction inasmuch as under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 there is no provision for making award the rule of the Court. I have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and find it totally misconceived. In the present case reference was made by Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Garg, Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Bathinda vide order dated 17.11.2000. The application for reference of dispute under Section 20 was made prior to enforcement of 1996 Act and, therefore, the proceedings were held under the Arbitration Act, 1940 and not Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Thus, it cannot be said that the impugned order is without jurisdiction as claimed by the State. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that counter claim of the petitioner was rejected by a non- speaking award. This contention is also without any merit as under 1940 Act the Arbitrator could pass a non-speaking award. No merit. Dismissed. September 11,2006 'sp' ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration Act, 1940 — ss. 30, 33; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 11 Sep 2006. The bench was VINOD K SHARMA.
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.