Page No.1 of 4 IN CR-76-2017 2025:CGHC:6638 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 76 of 2017 M/s D. S. H. Construction Co. A Partnership Firm Having Its Office At 404-A, Jagat Apartment, Ravi Nagar Square, Nagpur Mah. 440010 And Represented By Its Partner Mr. S.S. Hawale, Aged About 64 Years, S/o Late Shri Shankar Haawale, R/o Plot No.3, State Bank Colony, Amravati Road, Nagpur, Maharashtra ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Executive Officer, C.G. R.R.D.A., Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary, P I U-2, P M G S Y, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Mishra, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 05 . 02 .202 5 1. This civil revision filed under Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short the “Adhiniyam of 1983”) is directed against impugned award dated 31.01.2017 (Annexure- P/01), passed in Reference Case No.12 of 2011 (M/s. DSH Construction Co. v. State of Chhattisgarh), by the Chhattisgarh Arbitral Tribunal (for short the “tribunal), by which the reference petition filed by the applicant herein has been dismissed finding no merit. SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 2025.02.07 16:28:27 +0530 Page No.2 of 4 IN CR-76-2017 2. Mr. Ashok Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned tribunal has erred in law in dismissing the reference petition of the applicant summarily without examining 09 claims of the applicant amounting to Rs. 53,84,409/- by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. He vehemently argued that the learned tribunal has patently erred while holding that since the applicant has not completed his work and progress was slow, therefore, sufficient amount has already been paid to the applicant and the applicant himself is responsible for the loss occurred to him. As such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside and matter be remitted to the learned tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 3. Per contra, Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned State counsel supported the impugned award and submits that the learned tribunal after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly passed the award, which is strictly in accordance with law. Therefore, the present revision deserves to be rejected. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission made hereinabove and went through the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. A careful perusal of the impugned award dated 31.01.2017 (Annexure-P/01) would show the learned tribunal firstly from Para-01 to 05 has given brief facts of the case and, thereafter, from Para-07 to 10 submissions of the parties were recorded and in Para-11 & 12 certain documents are referred and, directly in Para-13, rejected the reference Page No.3 of 4 IN CR-76-2017 petition, which states as under: “13. On close scrutiny of pleadings not supported by documents and evidence of the petitioner we do not find any substance in petition. Consequently petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed with cost. Petitioner shall bear his own cost and cost of the respondents.” 6. Whereas, procedure on receipt of reference has been given under Section 08 of the Adhiniyam of 1983, which states as under: “8. Procedure on receipt of reference.—(1) As soon as a reference mentioned in Section 7 is received in office of the Tribunal, the same along with affidavit and documents shall be scrutinized by such responsible official of the staff of the Tribunal as the Chairman may, by general or special order, authorize in that behalf. (2) The reference if found in order or after removal of any defect or deficiency if discovered shall be registered, numbered and placed before the Chairman. (3) The Chairman shall having regard to the nature of the dispute the amount involved and other relevant factor, if any, assign it to a Bench for giving the award. (4) The Bench to which the reference is so assigned shall cause notice thereof to be issued to opposite party to show cause. The notice shall be in such form as may be prescribed and shall specify the date for appearance : Provided that if the Tribunal is satisfied that there is no ground for reference, nothing in this section shall prevent it from dismissing the reference at any stage of the case, for reasons to be recorded in writing. (5) The Opposite Party on or before the date specified in the notice for appearance, may file a reply in writing signed and verified by the opposite party or its authorized agent, along with an affidavit verifying the averments made in the reply. The reply shall be accompanied by such document or other evidence, which the opposite party wants to rely upon.” 7. However, the fact remains that the learned tribunal did not consider Page No.4 of 4 IN CR-76-2017 the claims of the applicant one by one, neither the documents filed by parties nor the evidence adduced were considered and, straightaway, the learned tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicant has no case for grant of claims amounting to Rs.53,84,409/-, whereas it ought to have considered the documents filed and evidence adduced by both sides qua each claim and, thereafter, could have concluded whether the applicant is entitled for grant of claim or not by passing reasoned and speaking order. But, same has not been done in the present case and the impugned award suffers from complete non-application of judicial mind. 8. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned award dated 31.01.2017 (Annexure-P/01) is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned tribunal for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law and after hearing both the parties afresh by passing reasoned and speaking order within 03 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. Consequently, this civil revision is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. No cost. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if