G.C. Mittal, J. - (1.) By order of Court dated 7-12-1983 Shri S.S. Morgia was appointed Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. The Arbitrator by award dated 7-9-1984 found that Rs. 89,067 were due to the appellant from the Bhakra Beas Management Board (for short BBMB). On receipt of notice of the filing of the award by the Arbitrator in Court, the BBMB filed objections saying that no notice was issued by the Arbitrator to the BBMB and that they were never given any opportunity to place their case before him and, therefore the Arbitrator misconducted. The objections prevailed and by order dated 31-5-1985 the award was set aside by the Court below. This is appeal by the contractor.
(2.) There is the statement of the officer on behalf of the BBMB that the Arbitrator never gave any notice to the BBMB nor gave any opportunity to them to place the material before him. From some material on the file of the Arbitrator the learned counsel for the contractor wanted to show that BBMB had taken part in the proceedings before the Arbitrator. However, when the statement of the contractor was read, therein it is clearly admitted that the Arbitrator never gave any notice to the BBMB nor they took part in the proceedings. Hence, no case for interference is made out.
(3.) The learned counsel for the contractor then urged that throughout the claim of his client was against the BBMB and due to some misunderstanding, the Court below has observed in the impugned order that the counsel appearing for the contractor gave his statement that he drops the claim against the Chairman of the BBMB. There is no statement in writing of the counsel in support of the aforesaid observations in the order. The observation seems to be based on some misunderstanding. The Chairman is never to be a party to the proceedings as BBMB is a legal entity and is to be served through an officer may be Chairman or some other person who is designed to receive the notices on behalf of BBMB. The other person who was prosecuting the case before the Arbitrator was the Executive Engineer of the BBMB and in spite of that the Court below held that the BBMB was not before the Arbitrator. Therefore, it is the BBMB which was to be served by the Arbitrator through an authorised representative. The observation that the claim against the Chairman of the BBMB has been dropped, is ordered to be deleted.;