- (1.) THIS appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act has been filed by appel lant against the judgment and decree dated 06-05-1994 passed by Civil Judge, Hand war in Misc. Case No. 116 of 1993, M/s Punjab Chemi Plant Ltd. Vs. State of U. P whereby the learned Civil Judge, Haridwar made the award dated 05- 08-1993 rule of the court passed by Sri G. S. Pandey, Arbitrator in respect of agreement No. 6/s. E. /76-77.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this ap peal are that the State of U. P and Janta Nirman Civil Engineer Contractor en tered into an agreement to construct Power House M/s Punjab Chemi Plants Ltd. is the consignee of Janta Nirman Civil Engineer Contractor. In the agree ment deed there was provision that as and when there arise any dispute be tween the parties, the same shall be ad judicated by the Arbitrator, which shall be binding upon them. The court below on 11-09-1986 appointed Sri G. S. Pandey as sole Arbitrator who gave his award dated 3. 08-1993. The Arbitra tor allowed the arbitration petition partly awarding total sum of Rs. 7,24,171. 00 along with pendentilite and future interest @ 3% per annum from the date of commencement of the arbitration till the date of payment or the date of decree which may be passed on the award, whichever is earlier. The Arbitrator filed the award before the Civil Judge, Roorkee for making the same as rule of the court. The learned Civil Judge registered the case as O. S. No. 116 of 1993 in which objections were filed from both the sides. The objection of the State was registered as Misc. Case No. 114 of 1993 whereas the objection filed on behalf of the Company was registered as Misc. Case No. 114a/1993. The appellant/company filed the objection on the sole ground that the rate of interest awarded by the Arbitra tor should be increased.
(3.) THE State of U. P has filed ob jection against the award on the ground that the Arbitrator has no right to give the award and he has mis-conducted his jurisdiction. It was also alleged that the claimant had no right to move the court for sending the matter for arbitration. THE State also alleged that the Arbitra tor did not afford sufficient opportunity to adduce its evidence. THE State also alleged that the Company did not com plete the work within the stipulated time due to his own fault. It was also pleaded that the claim of the claimant was barred by limitation. It was also pleaded that the claimant, at his own accord, had given no claim certificate in respect of the work and therefore he could not have claimed for arbitration of the dis pute in accordance with the principle of estoppel. THE State pleaded that the Ar bitrator has ignored these facts that the impugned award is not binding upon the parties. THE trial court on the objections filed by the State in Misc. Case No. 114 of 1993, framed the following points :. 1) Whether the award is liable to be rejected on the basis of the objections of the objector? 2t Whether the Arbitrator has misconducted himself while giv ing the award ? 3) Whether the case is time barred? 4) Whether the Arbitrator has given the award out of his jurisdiction ? If so, its effect ? 5) Relief? Likewise the Civil Judge on the objection of the Company/appellant framed following points in Misc. Case No. 114a of 1993 : 1) Whether the claimant/objector M/s Punjab Chemi Plants Ltd. is entitled to get interest @ 14% per annum upto the date of award and thereafter @ 17% per annum on the award money? 2) Whether there is need to amend the award ? 3) Whether the award is against the law and is liable to be re jected in to-to ? 4) Relief?;