ORDER

An award by an arbitrator in terms of which a decree was passed by the trial court was set aside on appeal by the High Court on the ground that there was no concluded contract between the parties in terms of Article 299 of the Constitution, and therefore, there was no arbitration agreement either. The High Court based its conclusions on the circumstance that the post-copy of the telegram of acceptance of the tender, the receipt of which was itself disputed by the party, was signed by one S". S. Bajaj, Deputy Director of Purchase purporting to be Tor and on behalf of President of India but that there was no evidence to show that the Deputy Director of Purchase was authorised to act Tor and on behalf of President of India under Article 299 of the Constitution. The question about the competence of the Deputy Director to accept the tender Tor and on behalf of the President of India was generally raised by the respondent at the very outset when he said in his objections to the Award that there was no valid or unconditional offer of the petitioners contained in tender dated October 31, 1958 by the respondent in the name of President of India or otherwise or by any person duly authorised on behalf of respondents or duly authorised by the President "of India. The question was expressly raised in the memorandum of grounds before the High Court. However, no evidence was led by Union of India to satisfy the court that the Deputy Director of Purchase was authorised to act For and on behalf of the President of India in terms of Article 299 of the Constitution. The High Court, therefore, had no option but to allow the appeal. Before us, after searching the record for some time we found a statement in the petition of appeal that the Deputy Director Purchase was authorised to enter into contracts for and on behalf of Union of India by S.R.O. 3442 dated November 2, 1955. We are not, however, ready to act on this statement in the petition of appeal as no attempt has been made to produce any additional evidence before us nor do we think it just to permit the appellant to produce at this stage any additional evidence when they had ample opportunity to produce any evidence which they had in the trial court and in the first appellate court. We therefore, dismiss the appeal. No costs.

For Citation : 1987 (Supp) SCC 84.