RAM AVTAR versus DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITARAN NIGAM LIMI

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Ram Avtar v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Limi - FAO-575-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 780 (15 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

F.A.O. No.575 of 2006 (O&M)

Date of Decision:21.2.2006

Ram Avtar

Vs.

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Limited, Hisar through its AEE, Hisar and another

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present:- Shri Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.

****

C.M. No.3482-CII of 2006

This application is for restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 30.1.2006. Application is accompanied by an affidavit of the counsel.

In view of averments made in this application, it is allowed and order dated 30.1.2006 stands recalled. Appeal is restored to its original number.

F.A.O. No.575 of 2006

On request, appeal is taken up on Board for hearing.

Vide order under challenge, objection of the appellant, filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, `the Act'), against arbitration award dated 10.7.2002, was dismissed. It is an admitted fact that ample opportunity was given to the appellant by the F.A.O. No.575 of 2006 [2]

arbitrator, to lead evidence, before award was passed. Court below has opined that to assail the award, except filing his own affidavit, no other evidence was brought on record by the appellant. Before the Court below and also before this Court, the appellant has failed to show that the award was passed against the principles of natural justice, that the arbitrator has acted beyond jurisdiction and also that the award passed was contrary to the provisions of any statute or public policy. Court below is justified to say that while deciding objection under Section 34 of the Act, the Court is not supposed to sit as a court of appeal on the decision made by the arbitrator.

In view of the findings given by the Court below in para Nos.11 to 13, no case is made out for interference as no substantial question of law has been raised at the time of arguments.

Dismissed.

February 21, 2006 ( JASBIR SINGH )

renu JUDGE

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

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.