Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS miscellaneous appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the 1996 Act') has been filed against the order dated 28 -7 -2010 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur allowing the objections under Section 34 of the 1996 Act filed by respondent M/s. Bhawan Avam Path Nirman (Bohra) & Company (hereinafter 'the Claimant') and setting aside the award dated 2 -3 -2005 passed by the Empowered Standing Committee.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent claimant, a registered partnership firm and the appellant Public Works Department (hereinafter 'the department') entered into a contract under agreement No. 28/1996 -97 concerning the work of improvement of Geometrics from Km.115/038 to Km. 119/240 on the National Highway 11, Agra -Jaipur. The date of commencement and completion of the work was 13 -7 -1996 and 12 -7 -1997 respectively. The agreement provided as per clause 23 that if there arose any dispute between the parties to the contract, they would be settled by a Standing Empowered Committee (hereinafter 'SEC') as provided thereunder. Dispute between the parties to the agreement No. 28/1996 -97 having arisen, the claimant sought arbitration setting up a claim for Rs. 85,79,605/ - on various counts. The matter was placed before in the SEC for settlement as per clause 23 of the contract aforesaid. The SEC vide its award dated 2 -3 -2005 allowed the claim laid to an extent of Rs. 6,77,232/ -. No interest thereon was awarded. Aggrieved of the award dated 2 -3 -2005, the claimant filed objections thereto under Section 34 of the 1996 Act before the District Judge, Jaipur. Therefrom the matter was transferred to the court of Additional District Judge No. 3 Jaipur (hereinafter 'the trial court'). Reply to the objections were filed by the department. The trial court vide order dated 28 -7 -2010 set aside the award dated 2 -3 -2005 inter alia on the ground that the said award was contrary to the terms of the contract, not as per the prescribed procedure vitiated by patent illegality, thus in contravention of public policy and therefore liable to be quashed. Hence this miscellaneous appeal.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant department as also the respondent claimant and perused the impugned order dated 28 -7 -2010 as also other material available on record.;