VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner contractor has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide which the appeal filed by the Company Works Engineer, Ambala Cantt., was partly accepted and the award qua the amounts claimed under Claim No. 15, 16, 20 and 21 were set aside and qua the other claims the award was made rule of the Court.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was allotted the construction work vide contract agreement No. CWE/LAL/16/80-81. The dispute arising out of the said agreement was referred to the Arbitrator for adjudication and the Arbitrator vide award dated 30.4.1992 passed an award in favour of the contractor. The petitioner-contractor filed an application for making the award rule of the court, whereas the respondent Commander Works Engineer filed objections pleading therein that the Arbitrator had ignored the specific provisions of the contract agreement and had awarded the amount in contravention of the accepted conditions of the contract agreement. It was claimed that the Arbitrator had, thus, misconducted himself as well as the proceedings by allowing the various claims illegally and it was prayed that the award be set aside with costs. The objection petition was contested by the petitioner herein on the ground that the objections were time barred as the award was pronounced on 30.4.1992. It was further claimed that the Arbitrator had not violated any terms and conditions of the contract agreement. Therefore, it was claimed that the Arbitrator had neither misconducted himself nor the proceedings and dismissal of the objection petition was sought.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the award dated 30.4.92 is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the objections, as alleged ? OPO 2. Whether the said award is liable to make rule of the Court ? OPA 3. Relief. The learned Trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the petitioner- contractor and made the award rule of the court. In appeal learned Additional District Judge set aside the award qua items No. 15, 16, 20 and 21 while qua the other items were upheld.;