High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/1844/2021dismissed

Union Of India v. M/S Sar Agencies

2022-11-24Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh2 pages

CR-1844-2021 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1844 of 2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.11.2022 UNION OF INDIA ......Petitioner Vs M/S SAR AGENCIES .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Present:Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioner/Union of India.

Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kiranpreet Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

**** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral) The petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 05.10.2019 passed by the executing Court. Evidently, an award was passed by the Arbitrator on 15.01.2002. The objections were preferred by the petitionerUnion of India under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the same were rejected on 05.05.2003.

FAO No.4047 of 2003 was preferred against the order of rejection of the objections. During course of arguments before the High Court on 26.10.2016, learned counsel appearing on MOHMED ATIK 2022.11.29 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CR-1844-2021 (O&M) behalf of the appellant i.e. the petitioner confined his prayer to the awarding of claim No.3 which according to him was not in consonance with the provisions of the clause 11 of the contract agreement. The High Court ultimately vide order dated 26.10.2016 set aside the award regarding claim No.3 along with interest thereon and the objections to that extent were not accepted. The remaining findings of the award as well as the order passed by the objecting Court were upheld. In the present revision petition, the petitioner has raked up the issue which is covered under claims No.2 and 5. I am of the view that the findings on these claims have already been affirmed by the objecting Court and re-affirmed by this Court in FAO No.4047 of 2003. The order dated 26.10.2016 passed in the said FAO No.4047 of 2003 has already attained finality. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is warranted in this revision petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.

(RAJ MOHAN SINGH) November 24, 2022 JUDGE Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHMED ATIK 2022.11.29 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment