Back
High Court Of Delhi
UNION OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
SURINDER KUMAR - Respondent
Surinder Kuma 57 of 1995
Decided On : 09/29/1995
ARBITRATION - SERVICE OF NOTICE OF FILING OF AWARD - PROPER SERVICE - REQUIREMENTS - VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - INHERENT JURISDICTION OF COURT TO SET ASIDE EX-PARTE DECREE - PROCEDURE FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE.
Fact of the Case:
The Union of India (appellant) and the respondent entered into an agreement for the execution of work at Hindon Airfield. Disputes arose, and the matter was referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator made and published his award and filed it in the High Court. The Registrar issued notices of the filing of the award to the appellant and the respondent. The appellant received the notice on March 9, 1994, but the notice did not contain sufficient particulars of the matter. The appellant's office made an endorsement on the notice stating that full particulars of the case were not given and that the notice was received without enclosures. The appellant's office also wrote to the Registrar seeking particulars of the matter. Meanwhile, the respondent filed an application for making the award a rule of the Court and advancing the date of the matter. The application was heard in the absence of the appellant, and the Court passed a decree in terms of the award on May 13, 1994. The appellant filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree, but the application was dismissed by the learned single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that there was no proper service of the notice of the filing of the award on the appellant. The notice did not specify the name of the work, the division or department to which the matter pertained, or even the contract number. The Court also held that it was not enough to direct notice of the filing of the award to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, particularly when the notice failed to disclose the material particulars of the matter. The Court further held that the failure to serve a notice of the filing of the award on the Executive Engineer, who was the Engineer-in-charge of the work and was the person who had signed the contract on behalf of the Union of India and was dealing with the matter, amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Issues: 1. Whether there was proper service of the notice of the filing of the award on the appellant? 2. Whether the failure to serve a notice of the filing of the award on the Executive Engineer amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that there was no proper service of the notice of the filing of the award on the appellant because the notice did not specify the name of the work, the division or department to which the matter pertained, or even the contract number. The Court also held that it was not enough to direct notice of the filing of the award to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, particularly when the notice failed to disclose the material particulars of the matter. 2. The Court held that the failure to serve a notice of the filing of the award on the Executive Engineer, who was the Engineer-in-charge of the work and was the person who had signed the contract on behalf of the Union of India and was dealing with the matter, amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the order of the learned single Judge dated December 19, 1994, and as a consequence thereof, the order making the award a rule of the Court, dated May 13, 1994, was also set aside. The objections filed by the Union of India were taken on record, and the matter was to be proceeded with by the learned single judge in accordance with law.
( 1 ) : Admit.
( 2 ) THIS is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated December 19, 1994 whereby the application of the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code read with section 151 thereof has been dismissed. The facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows:-
( 3 ) THE Union of India, which is the appellant in this appeal, and the respondent entered into an agreement being agreement No. 19/ GCD/88-89 by virtue of which the latter undertook to execute the work of replacement of double security fencing at Hindon Airfield, Hindon. The agreement was signed on behalf of the President of India by the Executive Engineer, Ghaziabad, Central Division, C. P. W. D. Hindon Airforce Station, being the Engineer-in-charge. As per clause (2) (e) of the conditions of contrast the Engineer-in-charge was to supervise and be incharge of the work. At this stage it will be convenient to extract the said clause which reads as follows:-
" (E) The Engineer-in-charge means the Divisional Officer who shall Supervise and be in charge of the work and who shall sign the contract on behalf of the President. "
( 4 ) THE execution of the work led to certain disputes raised by the respondent. At the instance of the respondent, the Chief Engineer (N. D. Z. H) C. P. W. D. , New Delhi, on January 15, 1993 referred the disputes under clause 25 of the agreement to Mr. S. S. Juneja, Arbitrator, Ministry of Urban- Development, Govt. of India, for adjudication. The Arbitrator entered upon reference on the same day and issued notices to the respondent and the aforesaid Executive Engineer. Pursuant to the notice, the Executive Engineer appeared before the Arbitrator and participated in the proceedings and so did the respoadent. Ultimately the Arbitrator made and published his award on February 8, 1994 and gave notice of the publication of the same to the Executive Engineer and the respondent. On receipt of the notice, the respondent on February 18, 1994, filed an application directing the Arbitrator to file the award. In this application, Union in this Court, which came to be numbered as Suit No. 444/94, for of India through Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Urban Development. New Delhi was arrayed as the first respondent and the Arbitrator as the second respondent. On February 21, 1994 the Arbitrator filed the award in the Registry of this Court. On February 25, 1994 the Registrar directed issuance of notices of filing of the award to the respondent herein and the appellant. Union of India through Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Urban Development and also directed the listing of the matter on May 5, 1994. Meanwhile on March 9, 1994 an official of the office of the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Urban Development Nirman Bhawan New Delhi received the notice of the filing of the award. The notice bears the following endorsement of the official of the addressee :-
"received without enclosures" There is another endorsement which reads thus :- "full particulars of the case may be intimated sd/- 9-3-94"
( 5 ) SINCE the office of the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India was not able to identify the matter, a letter dated March 16, 1994 was addressed to the Registrar seeking particulars of the matter.
( 6 ) ON May 5, 1994, the matter came up before the Registrar and the same was directed to be listed before the Court on May 26, 1994. The order of the Registrar records that the notice to the Union of India had not been received back. It further records that the counsel for the respondent (plaintiff-applicant in the suit) stated that the notice had been served on the Union of India on March 9, 1994.
( 7 ) ON May 9, 1994 the respondent filed an application, being I. A. 4455/94 in Suit No. 444/94, for making the award a rule of the Court and advancing the date of the matter, it was, inter alia, sated in the application that the appellants was served on March 9, 1994 with the notic
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
