- (1.) Contractor - M/s Shastri Construction Co. having lost in boththe courts below has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing judgments and decrees of the courts below, where by application moved by respondents herein under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act,1940 (in short - the Act) for making Award dated 09.01.1989(Annexure P-3) made by proforma respondent no.4 - sole Arbitratoras Rule of the Court, has been allowed by dismissing objections preferred against the Award by the petitioner herein and there by decree has 2 been passed in terms of the Award.
(2.) The petitioner Contractor executed some work of the respondents.Disputes arose between the parties. On request (Annexure P- 1) madeby the petitioner to respondent no.2 - Engineer-in-Chief, disput esraised by the petitioner were referred by respondent no.2 toproforma respondent no.4 as Arbitrator. Accordingly, the Arbitrator made Award Annexure P-3. Respondents filed application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Act for making the Award as Rule of the Court. The petitioner Contractor preferred objections against the Award. Basically, two contentions have been raised before me to challenge the Award. One contention is that respondent no.4 being Chief Surveyor of Works (CSW) could not be appointed as Arbitrator because according to the Arbitration Clause, only 'EngineerOfficer' could be appointed as Arbitrator. The second contention is that the Arbitrator has not adjudicated upon the claims made by the petitioner Contractor, which were referred to the Arbitrator, but has only decided the claim made by the respondents. Respondents herein controverted the objections raised by the Contractor. It was pleaded that respondent no.4-Arbitrator is also Engineer, in addition to holding qualification as Surveyor, and therefore, he was rightly appointed as Arbitrator. It was also pleaded that sincethe Contractor did not submit his claim statement or any other document before the Arbitrator, his claims could not be adjudicated upon. Various other pleas were also raised.
(3.) Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, vide judgment and decree dated 26.09.2005, dismissed the objections preferred bythe Contractor and allowed application moved by respondents under Sections 14 and 17 of the Act and made the Award as Rule of theCourt. First appeal preferred by the Contractor has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide judgment anddecree dated 28.02.2009. Feeling aggrieved, Contractor has filedthe instant revision petition.;