Back
2007 Supreme(P&H) 703
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Hemant Gupta, J.
State Of Punjab
Versus
Gurbachan Lal
C.R. No. 868 of 1990,
Decided On : MARCH 28, 2007
The importance of crucial evidence in construction contract disputes and the arbitrator's authority to decide on relevant matters.
Headnote:
Arbitration - Construction Contract - The court upheld the decision of the lower courts to set aside the award, as it was found that the arbitrator had decided the question regarding labor rates and the measurement book was not produced, which was crucial evidence for the construction work.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from a contract for the construction of Regional Extension Centre, Jalandhar, which was referred to an arbitrator. The arbitrator found that the department suffered a loss due to non-completion of work by the contractor and awarded compensation to the department for getting the work done from another contractor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the arbitrator had decided the question regarding labor rates and the measurement book, crucial evidence for the construction work, was not produced. The court upheld the lower courts' concurrent finding of fact and dismissed the revision petition.
Issues: Dispute arising from a construction contract, decision of the arbitrator, production of crucial evidence, illegality or irregularity in the lower courts' decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The arbitrator's decision on labor rates and the absence of the measurement book were crucial factors influencing the court's decision to uphold the lower courts' decision to set aside the award.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the decision of the lower courts to set aside the award.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the Courts below whereby award dated 3.7.1986 was set-aside. The dispute between the parties arising out of a contract for the construction of Regional Extension Centre, Jalandhar, was referred toan Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator in its award has found that the department has suffered loss on account on non completion of the work by the Contractor. The learned Arbitrator has also given compensation to the department for getting the work done from another Contractor. Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the learned Arbitrator himself has decided the question regarding labour rates in connection with the construction of the Regional extension Centre, Jalandhar in respect of which the dispute arose subsequently. Still further, it has been found that the measurement book
2. Was not produced the production of which alone could show the construction of work by the Contractor. Such is the finding of fact recorded by the Court below on proper appreciation of evidence. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Courts below which may warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed.
