INDER SAIN MITTAL Vs. HOUSING BOARD HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2002-2-108
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
February 21,2002
INDER SAIN MITTAL
Appellant
VERSUS
HOUSING BOARD HARYANA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
N CHELLAPPAN VS. SECRETARY KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [REFERRED]PRASUN ROY VS. CALCUTTA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED]
NEELAKANTAN AND BROS CONSTRUCTION VS. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAYS SALEM [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
SHYAM TELECOM LTD VS. ARM LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2004-9-154] [REFERRED TO]M/S. RANGALI AGROTECH PVT. LTD. VS. SMT. GAYATRI DEVI PODDAR & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2016-8-75] [REFERRED TO]
RANGALI AGROTECH PVT LTD & ORS VS. GAYATRI DEVI PODDAR & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2016-8-184] [REFERRED]
AUTOMOBILE CORPORATION OF GOA LTD. VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2010-1-373] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PAM DEVELOPMENTS P LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2010-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
MOHANLAL AGARWAL VS. MANJAN DEVI PATNI [LAWS(CAL)-2019-1-154] [REFERRED TO]
RISHABHKUMAR S/O BABULAL JEJANI VS. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-11-111] [REFERRED TO]
CARITAS INDIA VS. MALKONDIAH & COMPANY [LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-185] [REFERRED TO]
AMARPAL SINGH VS. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH (RWS) DIVISION MUKTSAR [LAWS(P&H)-2010-9-319] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PAM DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-2007-9-101] [REFERRED TO]
AMBRISH KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-127] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. ANANT KUMAR TIWARI [LAWS(ALL)-2002-11-132] [REFERRED]
OIL NATURAL GAS CORPORATIONH LTD. RAJAHMUNDRY VS. RAO AND RAO ENGINEERING WORKS, VIJAYAWADA [LAWS(APH)-2013-8-78] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR SHABANNA KURBUR VS. S. K. CORPORATION [LAWS(GJH)-2023-8-528] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN SINGH VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2012-7-125] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LIMITED FARIDABAD VS. ASIAN TECHS RANI CONSTRUCTIONS JOINT VENTURE COCHIN KERALA [LAWS(UTN)-2002-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SHIBBOO MAL AND SONS [LAWS(P&H)-2002-11-64] [REFERRED TO]
AKM CONSTRUCTION & ENGG. COMPANY VS. COMMANDER WORKS ENGINEER [LAWS(P&H)-2006-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
NORTHERN COALFIELDS LTD VS. SALUJA CONSTRUCTION CO ARBITRATION [LAWS(MPH)-2018-1-291] [REFERRED TO]
INDCON PROJECTS AND EQUIPMENTS P LTD VS. DEZURIK INDIA LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2009-12-171] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD VS. BARUN SANKAR CHATTERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2012-1-51] [REFERRED TO]
G MADHAVA RAO VS. G PADMA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2012-4-86] [REFERRED TO]
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD VS. PANCHAMI PACK PVT LTD [LAWS(SC)-2004-10-90] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA SHELTERS PVT LTD VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-2-534] [REFERRED TO]
JIT SINGH VS. PIARA [LAWS(P&H)-2003-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
PTC INDIA LIMITED VS. JAIPRAKASH POWER VENTURES LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2012-5-660] [REFERRED TO]
PARAMOUNT LIMITED VS. ION EXCHANGE (INDIA) LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2023-8-327] [REFERRED TO]
AZIZUR REHMAN GULAM VS. RADIO RESTAURANT [LAWS(BOM)-2023-10-101] [REFERRED TO]
BHADAURIA GRAM SEWA SANSTHAN VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SALES TAX ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-240] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED VS. CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES [LAWS(CAL)-2010-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI CHAUDHARY AVADHESH KUMAR, EX.PRESIDENT OF VOLLEYBALL FEDERATION OF INDIA, NO.7, LAXMI ROAD, DALANWALA, DEHRADUN 248 001, UTTARKHAND VS. VOLLEYBALL FEDERATION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY ROOM NO.72, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM PARK TOWN, CHENNAI 600 003. THROUGH THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, J.NADARAJAN, JOINT SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2017-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
DECONAR SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2009-12-223] [REFERRED TO]
SRI AMAR CONSTRUCTIONS AND ORS. VS. ESCORTS FINANCE LTD. AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2009-12-329] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SIRSA VS. BIMLA DEVI [LAWS(P&H)-2023-5-161] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER SINGH LAMBA VS. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(P&H)-2005-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD VS. APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD [LAWS(SC)-2015-11-13] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
B. N. Agrawal, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)These appeals by special leave are directed against judgment rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision Applications whereby the same have been allowed, orders passed by the appellate Court upholding orders of the trial Court disallowing the objections under S. 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have been set aside, objections allowed and awards set aside.
(3.)The Housing Board, Haryana-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), filed two separate money suits against the appellant in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Sonepat, which were transferred to the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sonepat, who, by separate orders dated 19th March, 1997, as agreed to by the parties, appointed Superintending Engineer, A.D.B. Branch Circle, P.W.D. (B and R) Branch, Faridabad, as Arbitrator for settlement of certain disputes between the parties pertaining to the works of construction of Houses in the Housing Board Colony at Sonepat. On receipt of the references, the Arbitrator entered thereupon and fixed 6th May, 1997 as the date for hearing the parties in the arbitration proceedings, on which date the Contractor attended the proceedings whereas the Executive Engineer, who was representing the Board, absented himself. On the next date of hearing i.e., on 13th May, 1997, while the Executive Engineer made a prayer for adjournment for filing the written reply, the Contractor attended the proceedings and filed documents and his counsel almost concluded the argument. The matter was, however, adjourned to 8th June, 1997. In the meantime, on 2nd June, 1997, Shri R.K. Jain, Superintending Engineer, A.D.B., Branch Circle, P.W.D. (B and R) Branch, Faridabad, who was the Arbitrator, was transferred and posted as Superintending Engineer, Construction Circle No.1, Union Territory Chandigarh, but he continued with the arbitration proceedings in spite of his transfer. On the next date of hearing, i.e., on 8th June, 1997, the Contractor attended the arbitration proceedings with his counsel whereas Executive Engineer representing the Board though attended the proceedings but without counsel and did not file written reply but requested for adjournment. Accordingly the arbitration proceedings were adjourned to 18th June, 1997, on which date, an affidavit was submitted on behalf of the Board in support of its case and after evidence was adduced on behalf of the parties, counsel appearing on behalf of the Contractor resumed further argument and concluded the same whereafter, counsel appearing on behalf of the Board also concluded his argument on that day itself.
(2.)These appeals by special leave are directed against judgment rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision Applications whereby the same have been allowed, orders passed by the appellate Court upholding orders of the trial Court disallowing the objections under S. 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have been set aside, objections allowed and awards set aside.
(3.)The Housing Board, Haryana-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), filed two separate money suits against the appellant in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Sonepat, which were transferred to the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sonepat, who, by separate orders dated 19th March, 1997, as agreed to by the parties, appointed Superintending Engineer, A.D.B. Branch Circle, P.W.D. (B and R) Branch, Faridabad, as Arbitrator for settlement of certain disputes between the parties pertaining to the works of construction of Houses in the Housing Board Colony at Sonepat. On receipt of the references, the Arbitrator entered thereupon and fixed 6th May, 1997 as the date for hearing the parties in the arbitration proceedings, on which date the Contractor attended the proceedings whereas the Executive Engineer, who was representing the Board, absented himself. On the next date of hearing i.e., on 13th May, 1997, while the Executive Engineer made a prayer for adjournment for filing the written reply, the Contractor attended the proceedings and filed documents and his counsel almost concluded the argument. The matter was, however, adjourned to 8th June, 1997. In the meantime, on 2nd June, 1997, Shri R.K. Jain, Superintending Engineer, A.D.B., Branch Circle, P.W.D. (B and R) Branch, Faridabad, who was the Arbitrator, was transferred and posted as Superintending Engineer, Construction Circle No.1, Union Territory Chandigarh, but he continued with the arbitration proceedings in spite of his transfer. On the next date of hearing, i.e., on 8th June, 1997, the Contractor attended the arbitration proceedings with his counsel whereas Executive Engineer representing the Board though attended the proceedings but without counsel and did not file written reply but requested for adjournment. Accordingly the arbitration proceedings were adjourned to 18th June, 1997, on which date, an affidavit was submitted on behalf of the Board in support of its case and after evidence was adduced on behalf of the parties, counsel appearing on behalf of the Contractor resumed further argument and concluded the same whereafter, counsel appearing on behalf of the Board also concluded his argument on that day itself.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.