Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) The challenge in the present revision petition is to the orders passed by the Courts below, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) were dismissed and the award was ordered to be made Rule of the Court.
(2.) The disputes between the parties were referred to an Arbitrator in pursuance of the order passed by the learned District Judge, Ropar on 17.8.1990 after the revision against the said judgment was dismissed by this Court. The Arbitrator has given his award on 11.12.1991 finding that hire charges amounting to Rs.79384/- have been recovered in excess from respondent no.1.
(3.) Though the learned trial Court has found that the objections filed by the petitioner were not verified nor supported by an affidavit but the said question is not relevant in as much as both the Courts have examined the contentions raised by the petitioner as to why the award was not required to be made Rule of the Court. The sole argument raised before the Courts below was that in terms of Clause 43 of the agreement, the decision of Superintending Engineer is final in respect of hire charges of the machinery or equipment provided by the Govt. Therefore, such final decisions cannot be made subject matter of arbitration in terms of Clause 63 of the agreement.;