SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(SC) 55

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Orissa High Court)
K. Jayachandra Reddy, S.P. Bharucha
JAJODIA (OVERSEAS) PVT. LTD., APPELLANT
VERSUS
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD., RESPONDENT (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 571 OF 1980)
WITH
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD., APPELLANT
VERSUS
JAJODIA (OVERSEAS) PVT. LTD., RESPONDENT (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 571 OF 1980).
Civil Appeal Nos. 572 and 571 of 1980
decided on January 15, 1993.

Advocates:
B.M.PATNAIK, DARSHAN SINGH, G.L.SANGHI, HARISH N.SLAVE, MONA CHAKRAVARTY, R.K.MEHTA, S.KHAITAN

Headnote:

Arbitration Act, 1940 - Section 20 – Claim of compensation - Cancelling the agreement – Jurisdiction - Chief Secretary declined to act as arbitrator - Thereupon JOPL filed a suit under Section 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940, in Calcutta High Court praying that the agreement be taken on file and dispute between JOPL and IDCO be referred to an arbitrator to be nominated by court - That plaint was returned to JOPL to be presented before proper court - It was presented in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar on learned Subordinate Judge appointed a retired Judge of Patna High Court act as arbitrator to give his award on the disputes between parties as enumerated in their respective pleadings and order of this Court. Reference be made to him requesting him to make the award by Copy of plaint written statement and order of this Court be sent to arbitrator – Held, It will be seen that the award says that the agreement provided for JOPL sending the original foreign sale contracts to respondent "at a certain stage - It also says JOPL fulfilled their obligations under the agreement in question" and that JOPL performed their part of the work as was necessary under agreement at relevant stage - On other hand, it says that "JOPL did not send the original foreign sale contracts to IDC - Award then finds that was not justified in cancelling the agreement - Reading these issues and answers together and harmoniously, it is apparent that the agreement provided that JOPL should send to IDCO the original foreign sale contracts at a certain point of time and that it is found that JOPL had not sent the original foreign sale contracts to IDCO. It is also apparent that it is found that at point of time at which IDCO purported to cancel the agreement, JOPL had performed all its obligations under the agreement - Conclusion is, therefore, that up to that point of time JOPL had not been obliged to send the foreign sale contracts to IDCO 0- So read in our view there are no inconsistencies upon the face of the award as can be as errors that vitiate the award. An award has setting aside an award reached by an arbitrator for parties have agreed that the disputes that may arise or have arisen between them should be resolved not by a court of law but by arbitration. - . It was submitted that the award of damages was based on no evidence or material - Submission was based on the finding that the originals of the foreign sale contracts entered into by JOPL in respect of goods under the agreement had not been sent to IDCO - That these original agreements had not been sent does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the arbitrator had no material before him upon which he could find that JOPL had suffered damage and assess the same in monetary terms – Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT

S. P. BHARUCHA, J. - These are cross-appeals and they can be disposed of by a common judgment. The Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd., (IDCO) is the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 571 of 1980 and Jajodia (Overseas) Private Ltd., (JOPL) is the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 572 of 1980.

2. IDCO and JOPL entered into an agreement whereunder IDCO agreed to supply to JOPL 5000 tonnes of M.S. Rounds for export on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The goods were not supplied. By a letter dated September 12, 1969, IDCO cancelled the agreement and intimated to JOPL that its offer, which had culminated in the agreement, should be treated as withdrawn. There was some correspondence between the parties. Thereafter the claim against IDCO for damages for breach of contract made by JOPL was referred to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Orissa, the arbitrator named in the agreement, for adjudication. The Chief Secretary declined to act as arbitrator. Thereupon JOPL filed a suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, in the Calcutta High Court praying that the agreement be taken on file and the dispute between JOPL and IDCO be referred to an arbitrator to be nominated by the court. That plaint was returned to JOPL to be presented before the proper court. It was presented in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar on April 4, 1973, the learned Subordinate Judge appointed Mr. H. Mohapatra, a retired Judge of the Patna High Court "to act as the arbitrator to give his award on the disputes between the parties as enumerated in their respective pleadings and the order of this Court. Reference be made to him requesting him to make the award by June 30, 1974. Copy of the plaint, written statement and the order of this Court be sent to the arbitrator."

3. The arbitrator entered upon the reference and after hearing parties and considering the material placed upon the record before him, gave an award on September 24, 1985. In the preamble to the award the arbitrator set out briefly some of the facts afore-mentioned. The arbitrator stated that issues had been settled for adjudication and that the parties produced a large number of documents, examined witnesses and advanced elaborate arguments. The arbitrator, having given careful consideration to all the written statements, documents and evidence and the arguments, set out the conclusions to which he had come upon the issues raised. He concluded :

"In the result, may award is that Jajodia Overseas Pvt. Ltd., is entitled to recover from the Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Rs. 11,00,344 only (eleven lakhs three hundred forty-four) with pendente lite interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from April 28, 1974 to the date of award (September 24, 1975)."

4. The award was challenged by IDCO before the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar. JOPL supported the award and prayed that it be made a rule of the court with future interest. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed IDCOs petition and made the award a rule of the court ordering that JOPL was entitled to future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.

5. The judgment and order of the learned Subordinate Judge was impugned before the Orissa High Court. The learned Single Judge who heard the appeal rejected all contentions raised on behalf of IDCO except one : he found that in answering three issues the arbitrator had arrived at inconsistent conclusions which had a bearing on the question whether or not damages should be awarded. The inconsistency was not a trifling or inconsequential matter and, being apparent on the face of the award, the learned Judge held that the arbitrator had been guilty of legal misconduct so that the award was set aside. The learned Judge directed that the records pertaining to the arbitration proceeding be sent back to the arbitrator, who was directed to give a fresh award, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties, keeping in view the findings and



























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top