The State Of Bihar And ORS v. M/S B.K. Singh And Company, Aurangabad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Revision No.66 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, 'Sinchai Bhawan', Harding Road, Patna.

2. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Aurangabad.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, North Koel Canal Circle, Gaya.

4. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, North Koel Canal Division Madanpur Camp. Aurangabad.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

M/S B.K. Singh & Company, through its Managing Partner, Shri Birendra Kumar Singh Son of Late Ranjeet Singh resident of Nawadih Road, Police Station - Town Thana, District - Aurangabad.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. J.S. Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 22-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties in the interlocutory application (I.A. No. 3294 of 2014) which has been filed for condonation of delay as well as on the merits of the revision application itself.

After considering the submissions and the averments made in the said interlocutory application, the delay in filing this revision application is condoned.

Patna High Court C.R. No.66 of 2014 dt.22-02-2017 The present revision application has been filed against the order dated 21.10.2013 passed in Review Case No. 10 of 2013 by the learned Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal rejecting the prayer for review of the award dated 24.04.2013 passed in Reference Case No. 130 of 2010.

This Court has not been persuaded to find that the learned tribunal has committed any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in passing the impugned award. From the perusal of the impugned award passed on review petition, it is manifest that the tribunal has recorded the finding that there was no discovery of new and important matter and further that the review cannot be used as reconsideration of the same argument once considered and rejected. This Court, therefore, does not find any merit in this revision application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. (V. Nath, J) Devendra/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 03.04.2017 Transmission Date