Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE STATE OF HARYANA versus MANOHAR LAL

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The State of Haryana v. Manohar Lal - CR-3658-1985 [2006] RD-P&H 4684 (24 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CIVIL REVISION NO. 3658 OF 1985

DATE OF DECISION: JULY 28, 2006

Parties Name

The State of Haryana

..PETITIONER

VERSUS

Manohar Lal

...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. K.G.Gupta, AAG, Haryana

for the petitioner.

None for the respondent.

JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral)

JUDGMENT:

State of Haryana has filed this revision petition against the judgment, passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, dismissing its appeal against the judgment passed by the trial Court dated September 21, 1984, vide which objections, filed by the State, against the arbitration award, were dismissed. It is apparent from the records that on order passed by the competent Court, dispute inter se the parties was referred to the Arbitrator on January 13, 1981, who passed the award on April 27, 1983.

The respondent then moved an application with a prayer that the Arbitrator be directed to produce the award in Court and the same be made rule of the Court. The petitioner- State put up appearance and filed objections but the same were dismissed vide order dated September 21, 1984. Appeal also failed. Hence this revision petition.

Contention of counsel for the petitioner that the Arbitrator, while passing the award, has misconducted himself, is devoid of any reasoning and the same was rightly rejected by the Courts below. The appellate Court below has noticed a fact that despite numerous opportunities given, the Department had failed to produce any evidence before the Arbitrator. Matter continued to be adjourned for a period of more than one year. Under these circumstances, there was no option left with the Arbitrator except to pass the award. Contention of counsel for the petitioner that the reference was beyond the period of limitation has also rightly been negatived by stating that as the order dated January 13, 1981, vide which matter was referred to the Arbitrator, was not challenged, it was not open to the petitioner to raise any objection before the Court below after pronouncement of the award. Before this Court, counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to show that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself. Otherwise also, amount involved is only about Rs. 6,000/-. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed.

July 28, 2006. ( Jasbir Singh )

DKC Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.