Bombay High Court
Shyam Goods Garage Thr. Lalit ... vs The Collector, Akola And Others on 13 January, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
39. AA 07 of 2022.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.07/2022
Shyam Goods Garage through Lalit Jugalkishor Sharma
...Versus...
The Collector, Collectorate, Akola and others
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ -
Ms Pooja Ramanaware Advocate h/f Shri H.S. Chitaley, Advocate for appellant
Mrs. M.A. Barabde, AGP for respondents
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 13/01/2023
1. Learned counsel for the appellant makes a
submission that the award dated 22/01/2016 (pg.40) passed
by the learned Arbitrator, rejecting the claim of the applicant as
well as the judgment dated 27/11/2021 in the proceedings
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(for short, "the A and C Act", hereinafter) dismissing the same
(pg.21), is in conflict with the fundamental policy appearing in
law and also with the basic notions of morality and justice, as
contemplated by Clause (ii) and (iii) of Explanation-1 to
Section 34 (1) of the A and C Act, which would require this
Court to interfere. She places reliance upon Haryana Tourism
Limited Vs. Kandhari Beverages Limited (2022) 3 SCC 237 ,
39. AA 07 of 2022.odt
wherein the principles regarding the jurisdiction of the Court
under Section 37 of the A and C Act have been summarized.
2. It is contended that though there was no clause
levying penalty for delayed transportation in the agreement
dated 11/07/2012 (pg.31), a penalty was levied as the
material was lifted on 09/02/2015 at 2:40 p.m. from Washim
and had reached Telhara the destination on 11/02/2015 at
9:00 a.m., which was only a distance of 143 kms. She submits
that in absence of such a clause permitting levying of penalty
for delayed transport of goods neither the award of the
Arbitrator nor the judgment under Section 34 of the A and
Act can be sustained, as it is a necessity under the A and C Act,
that the Arbitrator should be conferred with the jurisdiction to
enter into arbitration by the terms of the contract itself and
since the penalty imposed, was not in terms of the agreement
and Clause-25 of the agreement required reference to dispute,
the same ought to have been considered.
3. Mrs. Barabde, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the respondents concedes that there is no dispute
regarding the quantity of goods supplied nor there is a dispute
regarding the quality of the goods supplied. The only dispute is
relating to delayed transport. She seeks time to point out the
relevant clauses in the agreement dated 11/07/2012, which
relate to authority of the respondents to levy penalty in terms
39. AA 07 of 2022.odt
of the agreement on account of delayed transportation of the
goods.
4. Stand over to 20/01/2023.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Wadkar
Digitally signed bySHAILENDRA
SUKHADEORAO WADKAR
Signing Date:13.01.2023 16:49
