Indodan Milk Products Ltd. vs Union Of India
1994 Latest Caselaw 63 Del

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sat Pal, J.

1. S. No. 111A/86 is a petition filed by M/s. Indodan Milk Products Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor) under Section 14 and of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and in this petition it has been prayed that the respondent No. 2 who was the Arbitrator be directed to file the award dated 16th December, 1985 Along with the proceedings and award be made rule of the court.

2. S. No. 82A/86 is the petition filed on behalf of the UOI under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and in this petition it was prayed that the Arbitrator be directed to file award Along with arbitration proceedings and thereafter petitioner be given an opportunity to challenge the same in accordance with law. Since both the petitions pertain to the same award, I am disposing of both these petitions by this common order.

3. On 22nd August, 1986 the following issues were framed :

(i) Whether the Arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings as alleged ?

(ii) Whether the award of the Arbitrator is liable to be set-aside for the grounds mentioned in the petition ?

(iii) Relief.

4. On the said date the parties were directed to file affidavits by way of evidence. Pursuant to the said order, affidavit on behalf of the UOI was filed on 19.9.1986 and counter-affidavit on behalf of Indodan Milk Products Ltd. was filed on 23rd September, 1986.

5. Mr. Shali, learned Standing Counsel for the UOI submitted that the Arbitrator in similar cases between the same parties vide awards of the same date had allowed the claim regarding refund of excise duty, but did not allow the same in the present case. He, therefore, contended that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and as such the award was liable to be set-aside.

6. Mr. Kapur, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the (contractor), however, submitted that the facts of those cases were quite different from the facts of the present case. He further submitted that in any case no evidence whatsoever was placed before the Arbitrator on behalf of the UOI in support of their case. Mr. Kapur, also submitted that in the present case the award is a non-speaking award and as such this court cannot go into process of reasons particularly when no reasons have been given by the learned Arbitrator. In support of his contentions learned Counsel reliance on two judgments reported in the cases of Vishwanath Sood v. Union of India , and Food Corporation of India v. Joginder pal Mohinderpal .

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. From the award, it is clear that the award is a non-speaking one. At the request of learned Counsel for the UOI, the case was adjourned on 18th January, 1994 to 27th January, 1994 to enable the Counsel to examine the arbitration proceedings, but the learned Counsel has failed to point out any evidence placed before the Arbitrator to the effect that the facts of the present case were similar to the facts of the other awards. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the contention urged on behalf of the UOI. The said contention amounts to analysing the reasons given by the Arbitrator whereas no such reasons have been given in this award as the present award is a non-speaking award. Further since no evidence was placed on behalf of UOI before the learned Arbitrator, it cannot be said that the award is perverse. Accordingly, the objections to the award are dismissed. The view I have taken finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishwanath Sood (supra) and my own judgment reported in the case of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. Overseas Water Proofing Corporation .

The objections against the award having been dismissed, the award dated 16.12.1985 is made rule of the court. Let a decree be drawn in terms of the award. The award shall form part of the decree. I further direct that the amount with held, if any, by the UOI as mentioned in the award, may be released forthwith. With this order both the suits stand disposed of.

8. Rule of Court.