Civil Revision No. 1435 of 2012 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

Civil Revision No. 1435 of 2012 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 05.3.2012.

Beas Construction Board and another

.......Petitioners

Vs.

M/s M.K.Jain, Contractor and another

.....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate

for the petitioners.

.....

SABINA, J.

Petitioners have preferred this revision petition under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment

and decree dated 7.4.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Senior

Division) (Anenxure P-1) and judgment and decree dated

23.11.2011 passed by Additional District Judge (Annexure P-2).

The facts of the present case, in brief, are that dispute

had arisen between the contractor and the Beas Construction

Board (hereinafter referred as 'Board') regarding the construction

of 44 numbers Category-III quarters including Water Supply and

Sanitary Installation at 400 KV Grid Sub Station Bhiwani. The

dispute between the parties was referred to the Arbitrator and

the Arbitrator passed an award dated 28.12.1999. The award

was submitted by the Arbitrator before the Court of Civil Judge

(Senior Division) on 4.3.2002. Thereafter, notices were issued to

Civil Revision No. 1435 of 2012 (O&M)

-2-

the parties and the board submitted its objection petition.

The only point raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioners, during the course of arguments, is that the Arbitrator

could not suo moto send the award to the court for making it

rule of the court. The contractor himself could have moved the

court seeking that the award be made rule of the court within 30

days. Hence, the award had been sent by the Arbitrator for

making it a rule of the court with a view to circumvent the

limitation and help the contractor.

Admittedly, in the present case the provisions of the

old Arbitration Act, 1940 ('Act' for short) were applicable. It has

been noticed by the courts below that after the passing of the

award by the Arbitrator, the contractor had preferred an

execution petition. However, in the said petition, the board filed

an objection petition that the execution proceedings were not

maintainable and provisions of the Act were applicable. The

execution petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 16.4.2005

and it was observed that the claimant was at liberty to take

recourse to the Act and while computing the period for the

purpose of limitation the time spent by the parties in the

execution proceedings from 20.8.2002 till a month from the said

day of the order be set off. The Arbitrator had filed the award in

the court on 4.3.2002. Thus, in the present case it could not be

said that the Arbitrator had filed the award suo moto in the court

at the instance of the contractor as the limitation for moving the

court for declaring the award a rule of the court was still

available with it. In these circumstances, the courts below

rightly came to the conclusion that the award had not been

Civil Revision No. 1435 of 2012 (O&M)

-3-

submitted by the Arbitrator for making it a rule of the court at

the instance of the contractor.

Section 14 of the Act reads as under:-

“Award to be signed and filed:- (1) When the

arbitrators or umpire have made their award, they shall

sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of

the making and signing thereof and of the amount of

fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration

and award.

(2)

The arbitrators or umpire shall,, at the request of

any party to the arbitration agreement for any person

claiming under such party of it so directed by the Court

and upon payment of the fees and charges due in

respect of the arbitration and award and of the costs

and charges of filing the award, cause the award or a

signed copy of it, together with any depositions and

documents which may ha