113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1718-2025(O&M)

Date of Decision:23.09.2025 M/S TAKSH MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ....Appellant(s)

Versus UNDER SECRETARY HOME, CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS .....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Aditya Grover, Advocate and Ms. Divya Arora, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Aman Pal, Addl. Standing Counsel, Union Territory, Chandigarh, for respondents No.1 and 2.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')

have been dismissed.

2. Mr. Aditya Grover, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, while giving the brief facts of the case, submitted that it is a case where the appellant is the contractor and respondents No.1 and 2 are the Chandigarh Administration operating through the Department of Transport and a contract was executed between the parties for the purpose of advertisement to be put on the buses being plied by the respondent-Chandigarh Administration. The appellant being the contractor was to display advertisements on the buses of U.T. Administration taking advertisement from parties on his own and in this regard, money was to be paid by the appellant to the respondent-Chandigarh Administration. There were terms of contract vide Annexure A-2 contained in Clauses 5 and 7, which were the pertinent clauses in the licence deed which provided that there are total 446 buses available for the purpose of display of advertisements by the appellant- contractor. However, there was an added stipulation that the respondent- Chandigarh Administration has reserved the right to use certain number of buses which would not be more than 10% for display of Govt. advertisement departmentally for which no claim shall be payable to the appellant-contractor. In this way, a minimum of 402 buses will always be available to the appellant-contractor. It was further stipulated that the premium will be payable for all the 446 buses irrespective of the number of actual buses made available which will not be less than 402 by the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking. He submitted that when the advertisement was to be put by the appellant, the buses made available to the appellant fell short of 402 and regarding which the difference was to be paid to the appellant and in this way, a dispute arose between the parties and the matter was referred to the Sole Arbitrator. The claim was raised by the appellant and thereafter, the respondent-Chandigarh Transport Undertaking filed its counter claim with respect to the difference between the actual number of buses made available and total of 446 buses which was to be made available, as per Clause 5 of the contract. Learned Arbitrator did not grant any claim to the appellant but the counter claim was granted to respondent/Chandigarh Transport Undertaking with regard to the difference between 402 and 446 buses.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that the counter claim was filed by respondent/Chandigarh Transport Undertaking through its Director Transport who was not an authorized signatory for the purpose of putting up a claim and in this regard, an objection was raised before the learned Additional District Judge under Section 34 of the Act but the same was not even considered and therefore, the counter claim itself was not admissible in law. He submitted that so far as the counter claim which was granted to respondents No.1 and 2 is concerned, the same could not have been granted by the learned Arbitrator in view of the fact that respondents No.1 and 2 after filing the counter claim did not submit even an iota of evidence to show that how they were entitled to the remaining amount of the difference between 402 and 446 buses and in the a