IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4650-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 06.11.2025 Union of India ....Appellant(s)

Versus M/s. Subash Mahajan, Contractor and another .....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel, for the appellant-Union of India.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J.(ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 17.05.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot, 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. The brief facts of the present case are that there was a contract between the appellant-Union of India and the respondent, who was the Contractor, for repair of Building No.NP-09 at Old Budhawar Enclave, Mamun Military Station. A dispute arose between the parties and a Sole Arbitrator was appointed, who heard both the parties and thereafter passed a detailed award dated 11.02.2021. Eight claims were raised by the claimant, out of which some were allowed by learned Arbitrator. Five claims were raised by the appellant-Union of India who was the respondent before learned Arbitrator in the nature of counter claim but all of them were rejected.Learned Sole Arbitrator discussed each claim in detail on the basis of the contentions of both the claimant and the respondent and thereafter gave findings on each and every claim raised by both the parties.

3. The aforesaid award was challenged by the appellant before learned Civil Court under Section 34 of the Act, which was dismissed by way of impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Arbitrator has wrongly accepted the claims of the respondent-contractor without giving sufficient reasons, as no evidence was produced in support of those claims and even the interest awarded is not justified. He further submitted that the impugned order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot was based upon conjecture and surmises and without any evidence and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

5. I have heard the counsel for the appellant.

6. A perusal of the award which has been attached with the present appeal would show that each and every claim of both the claimant and the appellant-Union of India was considered separately and in detail by learned Arbitrator.

7. A perusal of the impugned order passed under Section 34 of the Act would show that learned Civil Judge dismissed the objections both on the issue of limitation and on merits. On merits, it was observed that a challenge based on wrong appreciation of evidence cannot constitute a ground under Setion 34 of the Act. It was further observed that unless a ground specifically available under Section 34 of the Act is not taken, the award cannot be set aside merely on the basis of alleged misappreciation of evidence.

8. With regard to issue of limitation, the same was discussed in detail by the learned Civil Judge. The award is dated 11.02.2021. It was the case of the appellant-Union of India that it was received by it on 03.03.2021 and the objections under Section 34 of the Act were filed on 01.07.2021 and in this way, although there was a delay of three months but it was within a further period of 30 days and therefore, the delay could have been condoned. However, learned Civil Judge observed that if the appellant was to take the benefit of the date from which they had received the award which they claimed to be 03.03.2021, then they ought to have proved the same on the basis of documentary evidence but the appellant has not brought on record any document to show that the award was received by them on 03.03.2021. In the absence of the same, the date on which the award was dispatched which was rather proved by the respondent on the basis of the original registered cover which was dispatched on 13.02.2021 and in