A judgment must be clear, coherent, and logical; incomprehensible judicial writing, which obscures reasoning and conclusions, fails the essential functions of a judgment and necessitates remand for fresh consideration to uphold the rule of law and maintain public confidence.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

Arbitration award, in the case at hand, had been passed on 20.10.2016. Before the arbitrator, the present appellant was the claimant. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appellant had preferred objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after for the purpose of brevity referred to as the act). The same were registered as Arbitration Case No.03 of 2017. Similarly, respondent No.2 also being aggrieved by the award so passed, had also preferred objections under Section 34 of the Act. The same were registered as Arbitration Case No.09 of 2017. Since both the petitions arose out of the same award dated 20.10.2016, hence, the same were taken up together by the learned Single Judge. They were decided vide common judgment dated 13.08.2019, i.e, the impugned judgment. A perusal of the impugned judgment, specifically the conclusions drawn in last part of Paragraph-5 and Paragraph-6 thereof, makes it is evident that the objections preferred by respondent No.2 were dismissed (Arbitration Case No.09/2017). Insofar as objections filed by the present appellant are concerned (Arbitration Case No.03/2017), the same were partly allowed and the award passed on 20.10.2016 by the Arbitrator was accordingly modified. Hence the present appeal.

2. Respondent No.1 is running 18,916 Anganwadi centers in the State of Himachal Pradesh. For the conduct of non-formal pre-school education, play and learning material kits are provided to the Anganwadi Centers every year. In the year, 2011-2012, a State Level Purchase Committee recommended purchase of Two-in-One Boards and Work Books for the Anganwadi centers in the State of Himachal Pradesh. In pursuance to the aforesaid, respondent No.2, on behalf of respondent No.1, invited tenders for supply of 18,352 pre-school education kits comprising of Two-in-One Boards. The last date for submission of Bids was 26.12.2012. The Bids were to be opened on the same date at 11:30 a.m.

3. On opening of Bids, one M/s Rajesh Scientific Industries, Agra (U.P.) was found to be the lowest bidder (L-1). The supply order was issued in favour of L-1, but it failed to submit 14 sample Kits within the prescribed days of the finalization of the tender.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the appellant being L-II was given an offer. After negotiations on the rates quoted by L-I the present appellant was asked to submit 14 sample Kits on or before 04.02.2013. Post receipt of samples from the appellant, the Managing Director of respondent No.2 was asked to issue a supply order to the appellant. The order was issued by respondent No.1, on 14.02.2013.

5. In terms of the tender conditions, the appellant was to supply the Kits within 45 days from the issuance of the supply order, i.e, by 30.03.2013. By the said date, the appellant had only supplied 2,270 Boards in 06 Districts against an order of 18,352 Boards in 12 Districts. Out of the 2,270 Boards supplied, only 1,000 Boards had been retained. The remaining Boards were reported to be of poor quality.

6. Meanwhile, M/s Rajesh Scientific Industries (L-1) had filed a petition being CWP No.782 of 2013 in the High Court. In the aforesaid writ so filed on 26.03.2013, the Court passed an interim order to the effect that supply after 45 days will only be made after seeking permission of the Court. Since the appellant had not supplied quality material upto 30.03.2013, as per tender conditions, nor any efforts were made by the appellant to approach the Court seeking modification of the order dated 26.03.2013 for permitting the appellant to make the r