TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 558
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irst appellate Court - Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, the original claimant -respondent before the High Court has preferred the present appeal. 2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under: That the appellant herein - Haryana Tourism Limited (for short, 'Corporation') invited tenders/quotations for the supply of Aerated Cold Drinks at its Tourist Complexes for the period 15.05.2001 to 14.05.2002. The tender submitted by the respondent herein was accepted by the Corporation. As per the agreement, the respondent-company was supposed to pay a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs on account of Brand Promotion which was required to be spent as per mutual agreement between the parties. 2.1 That the Corporation organised a Mango....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udge, Chandigarh. 2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the original claimant - Corporation has preferred the present appeal. 3. Shri B.K. Satija, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant herein and Shri Kanwal Chaudhary, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent herein. 3.1 Shri B.K. Satija, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - Corporation has vehemently submitted that the High Court has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the award in exercise of its powers under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. It is submitted that while quashing and setting aside the award passed by the arbitrator, the High Court has exceede....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd his competence was challenged by the respondent, which was summarily rejected. 4.3 It is submitted that the question of jurisdiction can be raised under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act which can also be raised after the award is passed. 4.4 It is submitted that even otherwise as no amount was spent by the appellant - Corporation, there was no question of any payment to the appellant-Corporation. It is submitted that on the contrary, the respondent filed a counter claim claiming Rs. 13.92 lakhs which unfortunately came to be rejected by the arbitrator. 4.5 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. We have also gone through the ....