- (1.) The respondent B.M. Gupta, entered into a contract with the Haryana State Agricultural & Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Hafed') the appellant for the construction of some platforms in the New Grain Market at Rohtak. As certain disputes arose between the parties, the matter was referred to Arbitration by virtue of clause 25-A of the contract. The Arbitrator, D.P. Gupta rendered an award for Rs. 52,812/- in favour of the contractor B.M. Gupta on 4th March, 1985. The contractor, thereafter, filed an application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 , with a prayer that the award be made a 'Rule of the Court'. The appellant, however, filed objections for the setting aside of the award on various allegations, and in particular that as D.P. Gupta, who had been appointed arbitrator by designation, and had been on deputation, had been transferred from his deputation post to his parent department before he could render the award, the award became non-est. It was also pleaded that the award had been rendered after the expiry of four months from the date of entry into the arbitration proceedings and as such, the award was liable to be set aside for that reason as well.
(2.) The Court came to the conclusion that D.P. Gupta, was entitled to continue with the arbitration proceedings right up to their completion and that the period of four months given in the contract, was liable to be extended at any time by the Court as also the fact that the appellant had not objected to the proceedings beyond the period of four months, the objection now raised was unacceptable. The award was, accordingly, made a 'Rule' of the Court vide order dated 16th August, 1986. The said order has been impugned in the present proceedings.
(3.) Mr. Jaswant Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the first objection raised before the Court with regard to the incapacity of D.P. Gupta, the arbitrator, the continue as such after his transfer, was no longer valid in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Hari Dutt Bhardwaj v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing, Board Panchkula and another, 1989 AIR(SC) 1670, in which it had been observed that the arbitrator (in the cited case D.P. Gupta himself) was entitled to make award as his deputation had been restored by a subsequent order and the award had been made after his return. Mr. Jain has, however, argued that by virtue of clause 25-A, the Contract had itself fixed the time during which the award had to be rendered as being four months and as the award had been rendered thereafter, it was non-est for this reason. I am of the opinion, however, that this argument lacks merit. It is the conceded position that the Court is competent to extend the time for making of an award. The Sub Judge was, therefore, competent to extend the time for making the award. This is precisely what the Court had done in the order impugned itself. Moreover, I find that the appellant had, at no stage, objected to the proceedings continuing before the arbitrator beyond the period of four months. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in this appeal. Dismissed.;