R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) BY this order I dispose of 4 Civil Revisions No. 475, 476, 477 and 478 of 2000, all titled as Food Corporation of India v. Gita Devi and others, as in the opinion of this Court all these revisions can be disposed of by one order because common question of law and fact is involved in the same. But for the sake of facts, I am taking up the same from Civil Revision No. 475 of 2000.
(2.) CIVIL Revision No. 475 of 2000 has been directed against the judgment dated 8.9.1999 passed by Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, who dismissed the appeal of Food Corporation of India (hereinafter called the Corporation) and affirmed the order dated 13.9.1995 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Amritsar, who dismissed the objections of the Corporation under Section 30/33 of the Indian Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the award dated 25.3.1991 given by the arbitrator was made rule of the court subject to the modification that the respondent-landlords shall get interest @ 6% per annum instead of 18% on the awarded amount. The Corporation took on rent the godown from M/s Om Parkash Kiran Bala. A dispute arose between the parties which was referred to the sole arbitrator Shri R.K. Gupta and on his transfer the matter was referred to Shri Shiv Parkash, sole arbitrator, who gave the award dated 25.3.1991 and allowed a sum of Rs. 3,97,104.20. The landlords filed application under Section 14 read with Section 17 of the Act. The Corporation filed objections under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Act and the award was sought to be set aside on the grounds that the same has not been made and signed by the arbitrator within the stipulated period of four months as the dispute was referred to the arbitrator on 23.10.1990 and he issued notices for appearance and preferring claims on 8.11.1990 but the award was signed and made on 25.3.1991 i.e. after a lapse of about five months from the date the dispute was referred; that the acts of the arbitrator constitute misconduct on his part as he has not supplied the copies of the proceedings and statements recorded before him to the parties and has not given adequate opportunity to the Corporation to prove its counter claim. It was also pleaded by the Corporation that the award has been given against the spirit of the arbitration agreement and as such cannot be made rule of the Court. The arbitrator has transgressed his jurisdiction by awarding past interest in the case and he cannot be so. It was also pleaded that the landlords failed to discharge their obligations under the agreement of lease as they did not keep the godowns neat and clean and did not get it white-washed.
(3.) NOTICE of the objection petition was given to the landlords, who filed the reply and denied the allegations.;