Back
High Court Of Delhi
NEW MODEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Suit 3875 of 1992
Decided On : 08/01/1999
Held:
To expect the Arbitrator to give detailed reasons for rejecting the objections would fly in the face of numerous pronouncements which underscore the difference in the obligation of a Court and of an Arbitrator. It has been held that it cannot be expected of the Arbitrator to give a judgment as are usually imparted by Courts of Law. It appears reasonable to interpret the mandate in the Arbitration clause, viz.-a-viz. the obligation to give reasons where the claim is above Rs. J lakh, to refer to the actual monetary claims, rather than preliminary objections, ft is obvious from a Reading of the A ward that the preliminary objections had in fact engaged the attention of the Arbitrator, and did not find favor within. Failure by him to disclose his reasons, would not render the A ward "otherwise invalid" as envisaged in Section 30(c). It is also not a "cause", as contemplated by Section 17 that would justify not pronouncing judgment in terms of the Award.
( 1 ) THE Award was made on 19th August, 1991 whereby Rs. 12,17,405. 00 (Rs. twelve lakhs seventeen thousand four hundred Five only) had been awarded to the respondents, (U. O. I.) D. G. S. and D. , New Delhi towards their claim for the price of seven chassis supplied to them by the respondents for fabrication of Milk Vans. However, their claim for interest at the rate of eighteen percent per annum as well as for Rs. 5,00,000. 00 towards general damages was rejected. The Objectors, who were also Claimants before the Arbitrator, had claimed a total sum of Rs. 39,27,720. 00 + Rs. l,21,800. 00 + Rs. 7,56,000. 00 + 82,700. 00 + Rs. 10,000. 00. i. e. Rs. 48,98,220. 00 (Forty eight lakh ninenty eight thousand two hundred twenty only ). The facts of this case are that the Objectors had entered into a contract with the respondents for the fabrication of twenty six Insulated Milk Van bodies on Tata and Ashok Leyland Chassis. These chassis had been purchased by the respondents and had been delivered to the Objectors for fabrication. The first lot of eight Vans were duly fabricated on 17. 2. 1997 and thereupon eight more chassis were delivered to them and these were also duly fabricated albeit after some delay. Thereafter, it appears that ten more chassis were delivered to the Objectors, the fabrication of which was inordinately delayed. The delivery period appears to have been extended from time to time but only three more were supplied to the respondents for fabrication by the Objectors. The remaining seven chassis were not returned to the respondents. The contract was eventually cancelled on 29. 1. 1982. The respondent s request for the return of these seven chassis was not complied with. This narration of the facts which had not been disputed by either party.
( 2 ) OBJECTIONS against this Award were filed on 28th November, 1995 by Shri G. N. Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the Objectors. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents on 6. 8. 1996 which contained the following averments : That the objection raised by the judgment debtor relates to Award dated 20. 8. 1991 subject matter of Suit No. 3885/92 which pertains to Contract No. SVI/204/129/ 23-11-76/204/195/24-2-77/71/nmi/019/paod, dated 13. 4. 1977 and Award published on 20. 8. 1991 through Arbitrator Shri C. Achutan, Additional Legal Adviser for Rs. 30,78,177. 00 in favour of Union of India and same made Rule of the Court, vide judgment dated 19. 9. 1994 by Hon ble Mr. Justice R. C. Lahoti.
( 3 ) THAT no objection has been raised regarding the present Suit No. 3875/92 which pertains to Contract No. SVI/222/71/210/22-3-75/324/paod dated 8. 9. 1975 and Award published through the Arbitrator Shri C. Achutan, Additional Legal Adviser, for Rs. 12,17,405. 00 on 19. 8. 1991 and same made rule of the Court vide judgment dated 14. 9. 1993 by Hon ble Mr. Justice Mahinder Narain and same matter is now pending before this Hon ble Court for setting aside the Award. As such, the application for setting aside the Award does not arise. In fact, no objection filed regarding Suit No. 3875/92 which is made Rule of the Court on 14. 9. 1993 by Hon ble Mr. Justice Mahinder Narain.
( 4 ) "that the objections filed by the petitioner, are frivolous and does not pertain to the present suit. As such, the objection/application under Sections 30, 33 may be dismissed. Prayer clause is controverted and same may be dismissed with costs.
3. No Rejoinder was filed by the Objectors.
4. When the arguments commenced Counsel for the respondents at the threshold submitted that since the Objections filed in the present case did not pertain to the award, there was no alternative but to assume that because of the failure to file proper Objections, the award should be made rule of Court. Faced with this apparently unsurmountable obstacle, Shri G. N. Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the Objector, has vehemently urged that it is the duty of the Court in every case to peruse the Award and satisfy i
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
