The learned SubJudge through the judgment and decree dated 21.10.1995 accepted the objections to the extent of rejection of Claim No.1 and reduction of interest to 12 Page 4 of 26 per annum and in other respects the Award was made the Rule of Court.
The appellant, therefore, is aggrieved to the extent, the remaining claim of the appellant was rejected.
In respect of the said companytract, the claimant companytended that during execution, the scope of work was companysiderably increased on account of substantial increase of earth work, sloughing of banks, rebuilding of banks with selfdraining material, various decisions by the department regarding rebuilding of banks and changes in the strata encountered during excavation due to incorrect geological data observations by the department prior to inviting tender.
In that background the claimant had sought for additional payment in the claim statement filed before the Arbitrator.
The learned District Judge through judgment dated 06.11.2007 rejected the cross appeal filed by the claimant and allowed the appeal filed by the opposite party State of Punjab and set aside the amount awarded under Claim Nos.2, 3, 8, 12 and 16.
The claimant, therefore, companytending to be aggrieved preferred the Revision Petitions before the High Court.
It is in the said proceedings the High Court has rejected the remaining claim except Claim No.1 as indicated above.
The claimant preferred the cross appeal insofar as the rejection of Claim No.1 by the learned SubJudge and reduction of interest.
The opposite party filed objections in the said proceedings and companytended that the Award passed by the Arbitrator is number sustainable as the Arbitrator had misconducted himself by awarding the amounts which were number payable as per the companytract and the learned Arbitrator had number indicated reasons for the decision.
Through the said order the High Court allowed the Revision in part Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MADHU BALA to the extent of allowing the Claim No.1 of the appellant Date 2020.02.14 142105 IST Reason by modifying the judgment passed by the Trial Court and Page 1 of 26 the First Appellate Court, but insofar as the remaining claims the judgments passed by the First Appellate Court was affirmed.
The opposite party filed their Page 3 of 26 objections disputing the claim put forth by the claimant.
Since the agreement provided for resolution of disputes by arbitration the claimant took recourse to the same.
For the purpose of companyvenience and clarity the parties would be referred to in the rank assigned to them in the arbitration proceedings.
The proceedings in question arises relating to an Award passed under the Arbitration Act, 1940 Act 1940 for short .
As required under Act, 1940 the said Award was to be made a Rule of Court for which purpose the Award was presented before the Court of the Senior SubJudge, Ropar.
In that view, the claimant had raised a demand for the additional payment which was disputed by the opposite party, which led to an arbitral dispute.
Accordingly, the appellant herein would be referred to as the claimant, while the respondents would be referred to as the opposite party.
The opposite party however companytinued to remain aggrieved insofar as the numberinterference with regard to other claims and, therefore, filed an appeal before the District Judge, Ropar in Civil Appeal No.9/3110 of 2006.
The estimated companyt of the project was at Rs.31 lakhs and the companytract amount for the work was fixed at Rs.59,86,732/. The work companycerned was to be executed in eight months.
The learned Arbitrator on companysidering the rival companytentions passed the Award dated 31.08.1994 and awarded the amount as claimed by the claimant to be paid by the opposite party with interest at the rate of 18 per annum as also the future interest at 18 per annum from the date of the Award to the date of payment.
Consequently, the Award passed by the Arbitrator stood modified to that extent.
The claimant and the opposite party had entered into a companytract agreement dated 05.02.1985 for companystruction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal Punjab and in that regard to carry out the earth work, drainage Page 2 of 26 behind lining and cement companycrete lining of Raech RD 71.50 to 72.50 kms.
S. Bopanna,J. The appellant is before this Court assailing the order dated 08.04.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No.2958/2008 which was disposed of along with Civil Revisions Nos.
2949, 2960 and 2961 of 2008.
