Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. M/s. Megh Raj Bansal, Government Contractor and Suppliers ANR.

[Civil Appeal No(S). 9012-9013 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No(s).31483-31484 of 2016]

BANUMATHI, J.:

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant and respondent no.1 entered into a contract regarding construction of 184 quarters including water supply, sanitary installations, compound wall etc. at Nuhon Colony RTP, Ropar, in which an Award dated 24th November, 1987 was passed by the Arbitrator for a lump sum amount of Rs.6,63,255/- payable with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In the Award application filed before the Sub-Judge, Ropar, by Order dated 31st July, 1990, the Sub-Judge, Ropar allowed the said objection and dismissed the first respondent’s application to make the award rule of the Court.

3. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred appeal, F.A.O.No.955 of 1990, before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned order set aside the Award of the Sub-Judge dated 31st July, 1990, which is challenged in these appeals.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties who have taken us through the order of the Sub-Judge and also the impugned order. By a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the impugned order is not a reasoned order and the grounds on which the objection of the appellant was allowed by the Sub- Judge who declined to make the Award Rule of the Court, was not considered by the High Court.

5. In view of above, F.A.O. NO.955 of 1990 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court.

6. Since the Award was of the year 1987, we request the High Court to hear and decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

7. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.

……………………..J. (R. BANUMATHI)

……………………..J. (VINEET SARAN)

NEW DELHI,

AUGUST 29, 2018.