- (1.) The award by the Arbitrator was passed in favour of respondent No.1 on 17.4.2008. Objections against the award were filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Act for short), which were dismissed and the State of Haryana came up in appeal.
(2.) First of all, learned counsel for the appellant argued that Mr. V.K. Bathla was appointed as Arbitrator by this Court, who on account of his retirement, suo motu handed over the case to his successor Mr. S.S. Verma, Superintending Engineer. The first Arbitrator had no power to assign the case to his successor. The next argument was that additional claims were allowed by the Arbitrator, which was outside the purview of the agreement between the parties and the arbitration clause. The Arbitrator had the authority to decide only the matters within the terms and conditions of the contract agreement.
(3.) Learned counsel for the contesting respondent argued that the Superintending Engineer concerned was appointed as Arbitrator and when he was to superannuate, he handed over the matter to his successor. No objection was raised by the appellant at that time and it submitted to the arbitration by Mr. S.S. Verma. The appellant was, therefore, stopped from raising any such objection here. The argument is accepted.;