M/s. Techno Builders vs Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Another

L.N. Mittal, J.—Contractor has filed this revision petition u/s 115 of the CPC (in short, CPC) assailing judgment dated 19.05.2003 passed by the lower appellate Court. Respondent no.1-Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board (in short, the ''Board'') allotted some work to the petitioner-contractor. Dispute arose between the parties. The dispute was referred to respondent no.2-Arbitrator, who gave award dated 06.06.1997. Respondent no.1 filed objections annexure P-1 for setting aside the award on various grounds. (The objections were apparently filed under the Arbitration Act, 1940). Trial Court vide judgment dated 23.01.1999 dismissed the objections preferred by respondent no.1-Board and made the Arbitrator''s award rule of the Court and passed decree accordingly. However, appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court preferred by respondent no.1 has been allowed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.05.2003 and consequently judgment and decree of the trial Court, making the award rule of the Court, have been set aside. Feeling aggrieved, contractor has filed this revision petition to challenge judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court.

Pursuant to order of the preceding date, Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Ex-Officio Chairman of respondent no.1-Board is present in person and has expressed regrets for non-representation on behalf of respondent no.1 on the preceding dates of hearing and has assured to devise proper mechanism to ensure representation in the cases of the Board. Accordingly, no further action or order is required on this aspect.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file including files of the lower Courts and record of the Arbitrator.

Learned lower appellate Court has recorded finding of legal misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator on the ground that documents summoned by respondent no.1-Board from the Contractor before the Arbitrator in proceedings dated 15.05.1995, 24.11.1995 and 05.08.1996 were neither summoned from the Contractor nor any order regarding the said request of respondent no.1-Board was passed by the Arbitrator.

Perusal of record of the Arbitrator justifies the finding of the lower appellate Court to the aforesaid effect. Executive Engineer, appearing on behalf of respondent no.1-Board, specifically requested the Arbitrator to direct the Contractor to produce various documents mentioned in proceedings dated 15.05.1995 and the said request was reiterated on 24.11.1995 and 05.08.1996, but the Arbitrator did not even pass any order on the said request, much less directing the Contractor to produce the relevant documents. Consequently, legal misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator is established. Finding of the lower appellate Court to this effect, therefore, does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the material on record so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction u/s 115 CPC.

However, after setting aside the Arbitrator''s award on the aforesaid ground, the matter should have been remanded to the Arbitrator for fresh decision in accordance with law. Impugned judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, therefore, warrant interference to this extent.

Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed partly. Award dated 06.06.1997 passed by respondent no.2 Arbitrator remains set aside, but in modification of judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, the matter is remanded to the Arbitrator for fresh decision in accordance with law.

As submitted by counsel for the parties, the Arbitrator shall be the designated officer as mentioned in the agreement between the parties.

Needless to say that the Arbitrator shall pass appropriate order on request of respondent no.1-Board regarding production of documents by the petitioner-Contractor.

Counsel for respondent no.1 stated that now the matter falls within the jurisdiction of Superintending Engineer, Bathinda Circle, Bathinda of respondent no.1-Board. Parties are directed to appear before the said Arbitrator on 11.10.2013.

Record of the Arbitrator be remitted to the aforesaid Arbitrator whereas records of the Courts below be sent back to the Courts below. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, is disposed of as infructuous.