Summary
The respondent--Marketing Board, entered into a contract with the appellant for the construction of their office building. The agreement stipulated that the Superintending Engineer of the Marketing Board would be appointed as the sole Arbitrator in case of a dispute.
A dispute arose in regard to the completion of the construction, and it was decided to refer the matter to arbitration. On 11th March, 1983 the respondent appointed Shri Gupta, Superintending Engineer of the Marketing Board as Arbitrator. While the Arbitrator was seized of the dis- pute, the Chairman of the Marketing Board purported to revert him to his parent department.On 6th April, 1984, the Arbitrator made his award which was in favour of the appellant. On 2nd May, 1984 the appel- lant applied to the Sub-Judge for making the award a rule of the Court. In the meanwhile, on 24th May, 1984, the State Government passed an order confirming that Shri Gupta con- tinued in the post as Superintending Engineer. On 28th February, 1985, the Marketing Board passed a resolution giving effect to the said direction of the Government and extending the deputation tenure of Shri Gupta to 3rd Septem- ber, 1985. On 30th July 1985, the Trial Court made the award a rule of the Court.In the appeal to the High Court it was urged that on 6th April, 1984 the date on which the Arbitrator made his Award, the Arbitrator had lost jurisdiction since he had been transfered on 4th April, 1984 from the post of Superintend- ing Engineer of the Marketing Board to his 850parent department in the State Government. The High Court accepted this plea and reversed the order of the Trial Court and set aside the Award.In the appeal by the contractor to this Court, the question was; whether the Arbitrator, Shri Gupta had juris- diction to make the award on 6th April, 1984 or had lost jurisdiction because of the order dated 4th April, 1984 reverting him to his parent department.Allowing the appeal,HELD: 1. Shri Gupta was on deputation with the Marketing Board up to September 4, 1984. He was prematurely required by the Chairman of the Marketing Board by order dated 4th April, 1984 to revert to his parent department. The State Government, however, ordered on 24th May, 1984 that Shri Gupta would continue on deputation with the Board. In fact, Shri Gupta did not even resume a post in his parent depart- ment. [852A-B]2. The necessary consequences of the order of the State Government continuing Shri Gupta on deputation with the Marketing Board was to nullify the order dated 4th April, 1984 passed by the Chairman purporting to revert him to his parent department. It is clear from the records that Shri Gupta was paid his salary by the Marketing Board for the entire month of April 1984, a circumstance which establishes that he was continuing with the Board when he made the Award. Shri Gupta must, therefore, he deemed to have enjoyed jurisdiction as Arbitrator on 6th April, 1984 when he made the Award. The deputation of Shri. Gupta with the Marketing Board did never terminate. [852B-D]See the full content of this document
Extract
Hari Dutt Bhardwaj VS. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board,punchkula & Anr.
PETITIONER: HARI DUTT BHARDWAJ Vs.RESPONDENT: HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD,PUNCHKULA & ANR.DATE OF JUDGMENT01/05/1989BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ)BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ)NATRAJAN, S. (J)CITATION: 1989 AIR 1670 1989 SCR (2) 8...
See the full content of this document