Viney Mittal, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as the Marketing Board) by raising a challenge to the judgment dated November 17, 1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani and also the judgment dated March 21, 1986 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Bhiwani. The learned Senior Sub Judge, Bhiwani had rejected the objection petition filed by the petitioner Board and consequently, award dated June 25, 1984 was ordered to be made the rule of the Court. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the objector Board.
(2.) THE facts which emerge from the record show that the contractor Sat Narain had been awarded the contract of construction and there was a dispute between the parties and according to the clause of the agreement, the same was referred for adjudication to an Arbitrator. After giving due opportunity to the parties to produce the relevant evidence, the Arbitrator gave an award in favour of the contractor and he was held entitled to an amount of Rs. 75,024.83 with a further stipulation that if the payment was not made within 30 days from the date of passing of the award, then the contractor would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
(3.) WHEN the contractor filed an application for making the aforesaid award rule of the Court, objections were raised by the Marketing Board. It was claimed that the Arbitrator had not given proper opportunities to the Board to lead evidence and further that the award was rendered after the expiry of a period of 4 months. An objection was also raised to the effect that the contractor was not registered under Section 69 of the Partnership Act and as such was not entitled to claim any amount. All the objections were rejected by the trial Judge. Consequently, the award was ordered to be made the rule of the Court.;