Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 7441
$~J-
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20th August 2024 + O.M.P. (COMM) 216/2020 APTEC ADVANCED PROTECTIVE TECHNOLOGIES AG ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akash Panwar &
Mr. Rohan Chawla, Advocates.
versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Mamta Tiwari with Ms. Veronica Mohan, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
J U D G M E N T
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J.
By way of the present petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 („A&C Act‟), the petitioner impugns what it claims is an interim award dated 18.11.2010 made by the learned Sole Arbitrator, by which the learned Arbitrator has dismissed 04 applications filed by the petitioner (claimant in the arbitral proceedings) seeking discovery of certain documents from respondent No. 1. For completeness of record, it must be noted that, to begin with, the learned Arbitrator had been arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the present petition; but subsequently vide order dated 04.12.2014 made by this court, the name of the learned Arbitrator was deleted from the array of party-respondents in the present proceedings, thereby leaving only one respondent in the matter.
2. Notice on this petition was issued on 22.03.2011; consequent to which the respondent has filed reply dated 19.08.2011. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder dated 25.08.2011 to such reply.
3. A summary of the 04 applications bearing I.A. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of
2009 filed by the petitioner before the learned Arbitrator, including the documents sought by the petitioner, the respondent‟s response thereto and the Tribunal‟s findings thereon, may be summarized as follows :
| I.A. No. | Document sought by the claimant (petitioner) from the non-claimant (respondent) | Respondent’s response | Tribunal’s findings |
| 1 of 2009 filed on 07.04.2009 | Document No. 1 : Acceptance Test Procedures adopted as per SOP- Standard Operating Procedures of DGQA specific to Multipurpose Mountaineering Boots and Joint Receipt Inspection Reports – Nov 1999 to Jan 2000 | Document not available with the respondent | Document No.1 does not exist since the boots were inspected visually. Therefore, not possible to call for production of document No. 1. |
| Document No. 2 : Defect Investigation Report and Scientific Laboratory Test Methodology with List of Applicable Standards for Model „A‟ Boot purported to have been defective with regard to „sole erosion‟ – Nov 2000 to June 2002 | Document supplied | D T ocuments Nos. 2 and 3 had already been filed by the respondent in Volume-II of their documents. he competent authority under the R.T.I. Act has already furnished full text of the report sought for as Document No. 4. Hence, no further orders necessary. | |
| Document No. 3 : Defect Investigation Report and Scientific Laboratory Test Methodology with List of Applicable Standards for comparative testing of Model „A‟ (purported to be defective) and Model „B‟ (accepted) with regard to „sole erosion‟ – Nov 2000 to June 2002 | Document supplied | ||
| Document No. 4 : Reports of the visit of DGQA Team to Units under XIV Corps c/o 56 APO – In connection with purported defect of Boot Koflach being used in Siachen Glacier area plus other items like Crampons, Gloves, Ice Pick, Ice Pitons, Jummar, Rope Climbing etc. – 2nd Feb to10th Feb 2001 | Relevant pages of document supplied under RTI – remaining part of the report claimed to be confidential and sensitive |
| I.A. No. | Document sought by the claimant (petitioner) from the non-claimant (respondent) | Respondent’s response | Tribunal’s findings |
| 2 of 2009 filed on 17.06.2009 | Production of Field Trial Report of December, 1998 pertaining to the Model „A‟ Boot | Respondent had supplied the document to the Tribunal for consideration | A copy of the Report was produced by the respondent before the Tribunal; and the Tribunal found that the respondent had conducted Trial test on only 3 sets of Boots. The Tribunal noted that it was stated in the report that the tests were done on the 03 pairs of shoes, which was on a limited scale which did not represent the exhaustive view of users to the meagre number of samples given for users trials. For this reason, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the Field Test Reports, 1 |
