ANIL KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS order shall dispose of objections by the plaintiff, Union of India under Sections 30 and 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940 against the arbitral award dated 29th December, 1999 passed by the learned Arbitrator which was filed by the Arbitrator and which was registered as CS (OS) 1257-A of 2000 and the petition which was filed by M/s Kundra Shoes under Section14,17 and 29 of the arbitration Act, 1940 before the Award was filed by the Arbitrator, seeking direction to the Arbitrator to file the award and to make the award rule of the court.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts to appreciate the controversies are that the plaintiff floated a tender enquiry and in response defendant offered to supply the stores, namely, shoe canvas, brown rubber soles of different size by an advance acceptance of tender on 30th July, 1984 followed by a formal AT bearing No. WL-3/101/208/2-6-81/63/ii/776/rp/110/coad dated 9th August, 1984. The plaintiff had conveyed his acceptance of tender by letter dated 16th August, 1984 except the Bank guarantee which was furnished on 31st January, 1985. .

( 3 ) THAT despite the acceptance of the tender, the defendant could not deliver the stores in accordance with the schedule as set out in clause 10 of ender and therefore, by letter dated 12th March, 1985 referring to an earlier letter dated 5th February, 1985, the defendant requested for an extension of delivery period. Consequent to the request made by the defendant, the delivery period was extended up to 31st March, 1985 which was agreeable by the defendant unconditionally.

( 4 ) DEFENDANT thereafter sought further extension of time which were allowed up to 24th July, 1987. Extension thereafter, sought on 18th September, 1987 was, however, was not considered. As the defendant had failed to supply the stores, a quantity of 89,542 pairs, the contract was cancelled by the plaintiff on 29th December, 1987 treating the date of breach as 30th September, 1987. Consequent to the cancellation of the contract, the bank guarantee was also sought to be invoked by the plaintiff on 30th December, 1987.

( 5 ) THAT in accordance with the terms of the agreement, a communication dated 11/13th January, 1988 was sent to be the defendant regarding effecting a risk/purchase.

( 6 ) THAT pursuant to the notice of the risk/purchase, the plaintiff carried out risk/purchase and claimed amounts from the defendants leading to disputes between the parties. The defendant claimed that the risk/purchase was not carried out within a period of six months from the cancellation of the contract, in accordance with the terms of the agreement. It seems that the defects appeared in the soles of shoes which were supplied by the defendant. The defendant was served notice to remove the defects after about seven years of supply which the defendant failed to do, leading to auction of the same after about 7 years and thus more disputes arose between the parties.

( 7 ) THAT since the disputes had arisen on account of demands raised by the plaintiff, the arbitration agreement in terms of arbitration clause was invoked and matter was referred for adjudication of the sole arbitrator before whom plaintiff made six claims and the defendant also made counter claims. Shri Ram bahadur, Addl. Legal Advisor to the Government of India, Ministry of Law was appointed as Sole Arbitrator and on his resignation, Mr. B. L. Nishad, Addl. Legal advisor to the Government of India was appointed the sole Arbitrator who gave an award.

( 8 ) THE learned arbitrator gave an award dated 29th December, 1999 and rejected the claims of the plaintiff and allowed some of the claims of the defendant, the details of which are as under:-

S.

NO

Claims Amount claimed Amount awarded

in Rs.

1 UOI claimed the sum towards Risk Purchase loss. Claim was disallowed. 3,09,144. 40 NIL 2 UOI claimed the sum due to non-replacement of stores. Arbitrator dis-allowed the claim. 3 UOI claimed the sum towards amount deducted by the cons