JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.:- H.P. Housing Board (Objector for short) has filed these objections under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996. (Act for short), for setting aside of the award made by shri R.K. Makkar. then Superintending Engineer, of the Objector Board who was appointed as Arbitrator by the Chairman of the Board on the dispute raised by shri Madho Singh Ahuja. hereinafter referred to as "the respondent".

2. It appears, the work for the construction of Police Housing Colony (construction of 24 Police Houses type-I and II and Police Chowki at Mandi) was awarded to the respondent in April. 1993 by an agreement executed between the parties. After the building was completed, the Objector filed certain claims which were referred to Shri R.K. Makkar. then Superintending Engineer of the Objector Board on June 7. 1994 in terms of clause 25 of the Contract Agreement. The award was made by the Arbitrator on September 29. 1996 which vas set-aside by this Court in Civil Suit No. 100 of 1996 along with Civil suit No.54 of 1997 Madho Singh Ahuja-v- H.P. Housing Board on July 23. 1997 and remanded the matter back to the arbitrator for deciding it afresh taking into consideration the observations made in the judgment.

3. The Arbitrator, after remad. again made a similar award and sent it to this Court on April 20. 1998 which was registered as civil suit No.42 of 1998 for making it rule of the Court. Objections were once again filed by the Housing Board. However, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Thyseen Stahlunoin GMBH v. Steel Authority of lndia Ltd. 1999 (1) SCC 334. this Court observed that the case is governed by the provisions of the Act and. therefore objections preferred under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. 1940 were not maintainable. It was further observed by this Court that the award was not required to be made the rule of the Court as the same is executable as a decree of Civil Court as contemplated under Section 36 of the Act. Objections were accordingly rejected. However, the parties were given liberty to raise objections as may be available to them in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

4. The Objector thereafter filed the present objections. The case of the Objector is: (a) that the arbitrator has acted illegally in not considering the objections raised by the Objectors: (b) the Arbitrator, in making his award, acted in total violation of the provisions of the Act and mis conducted himself: (c) the award made by the arbitrator is beyond the scope of the Arbitration Act and relates to the disputes not contemplated and not falling within the terms of the agreement: (d) the award made by the arbitrator is in conflict w ith the Public Policy inasmuch as it is against the law as laid down by the Legislature and interpreted by the Courts: (e) the award was made by the arbitrator without there being any material on record or evidence to support it which would be "violative of public policy of India": (g) the arbitrator illegally invoked clause 12A of the agreement to made the award in favour of the respondent though clause 12A of the Agreement was not invokable in the facts and circumstances of the case: (g) the award of the arbitrator in respect of all the matters is based on no evidence, is inconsistent with the terms of the agreement, against the public policy and the law as laid down by the courts and is without jurisdiction.

5. The respondent in his reply submits that: (a) the award made by the Arbitrator is reasoned and has been made-on the basis of the material placed before him. The arbitrator was not required to give a detailed judgment and there is no misconduct on the part of the arbitrator: (b) the arbitrator did not act either in violation of the provisions of the Act or the law laid down by the Courts: (c) it is maintained that the impugned award cannot be said to be beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement nor in conflict with public policy of India:

Click Here to Read the rest of this document