STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARDYAL
LAWS(SC)-1985-4-37
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on April 10,1985

STATE OF PUNJAB Appellant
VERSUS
HARDYAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.B. MISRA, J. - (1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) HARDYAL, the respondent, entered into a contract with the State of Punjab, Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads Branch) for the construction of certain bridges and culverts on the Mukerian-Naushehra Road. The agreement between the parties was evidenced by a writing. The written agreement contained an arbitration clause which provided that dispute, if any, between the parties would be referred to the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads), Jullundur Circle. It appears that no period was fixed in the agreement of reference for giving the award and therefore period of four months as prescribed in Clause 3 of the First Schedule attached to the Arbitration Act would be the statutory period for giving the award. 631 Some dispute did arise between the parties. The respondent, therefore, sent a notice on 7/01/1960 to the Superintending Engineer requesting him to accept his claim to the tune of Rs. 7,568.00 and give his award accordingly. The respondent claimed this amount of compensation broadly on two counts: (1) that the Sub-Divisional Officer had got certain bridges demolished which according to the respondent had been constructed strictly in terms of the agreement, and (2) that the respondent has also been directed to stop the work.
(3.) THE arbitrator gave his award against the respondent on 28/04/1961, but after the expiry of the prescribed period. It is, however, admitted by the respondent that he participated in the proceedings before the arbitrator even after the expiry of the statutory period. THE respondent challenged the award by filing an objection under S. 30 of the Arbitration Act on a number of grounds. On the pleas taken by the respondent the Senior Sub-Judge framed the following four issues : (1) whether the objections were premature, (2) whether the arbitrator had misconducted himself or the proceedings, (3) whether the award was against natural justice, and (4) whether the award was made after inordinate delay.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.