29 August 2018
Supreme Court
Download

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs M/S. MEGH RAJ BANSAL GOVT CONTRACTOR AND SUPPLIERS

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
Judgment by: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
Case number: C.A. No.-009012-009013 / 2018
Diary number: 31489 / 2016
Advocates: KAMALDEEP GULATI Vs BIRENDRA KUMAR MISHRA


1

1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  No(s). 9012-9013 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C)No(s).31483-31484 of 2016)

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD                     Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

M/S. MEGH RAJ BANSAL, GOVT. CONTRACTOR AND SUPPLIERS & ANR.   Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

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.

2

2

(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.