High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Haryana State Electricity Board and othe v. M/s.R. D. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. - CR-2819-1996  RD-P&H 2482 (21 April 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.2819 of 1996
Date of decision: April 19,2006
Haryana State Electricity Board and others V. M/s.R. D. Ispat Pvt. Ltd.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
Present: Shri H.S.Gill, Senior Advocate, with Shri Hari Chand,Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Ashok Aggarwal,Sr. Advocate with Shri Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondent.
Haryana State Electricity Board and its Officers are the petitioners before this Court. They have challenged order dated September 15,1994 passed by Learned Sub Judge I Class, Jagadhri, and the appellate Order dated April 24,1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri.
There was a dispute between the Contractor and the Board. An Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate upon the aforesaid controversy. The Arbitrator rendered his award dated September 22,1992. The contractor filed an application before the Court for making the aforesaid award a rule of the Court. Notice of the aforesaid application was served upon the respondent-Board. The respondent-Board appeared before the Court on December 17,1992.The award in question was filed in Court on December 18,1992. The matter was thereafter adjourned to various dates. On March 18,1993 and again on May 5,1993 to which dates the case was adjourned, no objections were preferred by the Board. For the first time the objections were filed by the Board before the trial Judge on September 14,1993.
Various objections were raised against the award.
The Contractor contested the objection petition filed by the C.R. No.2819 of 1996 2
Board and claimed that objections filed by the Board were barred by limitation.
The learned trial Judge took into consideration the proceedings in the case and noticed that objections had been preferred by the Board after the expiry of 30 days even from the date of their apperance and in any case beyond 30 days from the date of filing of the award. Consequently, the objections raised by the Board were dismissed as barred by limitation.
The appeal filed by the Board was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. Learned Additional District Judge also held that the objections filed by the Board were barred by limitation.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.
In my considered view there is no merit in the present revision petition.
The facts noticed above show that the petitioner-Board had put in appearance before the learned trial Judge on December 17,1992.The award in question was filed in court on December 18,1992. No objections were preferred by the Board on the aforesaid date. The case was adjourned thereafter to March 18,1993 and again to May 5,1993. On the aforesaid two dates also the Board failed to file objections. The objections were filed for the first time on September 9,1993. In these circumstances, it has rightly been held by the two courts below that the objections filed by the Board were beyond the period of limitation.
The findings recorded by the two courts below are not shown to be erroneous in any manner.
In view of the aforesaid discussion,I do not find any merit in the present revision petition. The revision petition is, consequently, dismissed.
April 19,2006 (Viney Mittal )
C.R. No.2819 of 1996 3
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.