Delhi High Court
Kirpal Singh Khurana vs Union Of India on 2 September, 1997
Equivalent citations: 70 (1997) DLT 58
Author: K Gupta
Bench: K Gupta
JUDGMENT
K.S. Gupta, J.
(1) M/S. Kirpal Singh Khurana & Sons filed petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act alleging that it entered into a contract with the Union of India-respondent No. 1 through the Executive Engineer, Public Witness Pwd Division No. 26 (DA), New Delhi, for execution of the work of "Construction of Home for Mentally Retarded Children and Adults", Dormitory and kitchen with connecting corridor i/c internal water supply and sanitary installations at Avantika (Rohini) Sh : Phase Iii and an agreement bearing No. 22/EE/84-85 was executed between the parties. Disputes having arises between the parties in respect of the contract were referred in terms of arbitration clause to respondent No. 2 on or about August 17, 1989. Respondent No. 2 entered upon the reference on October 11, 1989 and made the award on December 6,1990. Notice of the award having been made was received by the petitioner on or about December 13, 1990. It was prayed that respondent No. 2 may be directed to file the award with arbitration proceed ings for making the same the rule of the Court.
(2) After the award was filed by respondent No. 2 in Court, in response to the notice, respondent No. 1 filed objections (I.A. No. 8994/91) under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award dated December 6, 1990 and also application being I.A. No. 456/93 under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing I.A. No. 8994/91. One of the grounds taken in I.A. No. 8994/91 is that in addition to opposing the claims made by the petitioner, respondent No. 1 also filed counter claims separately but the same were not considered by the Arbitrator-respondent No. 2 while making the award dated December 6, 1990.
(3) On August 29, 1997 when the matter came up for hearing Mr. Sanjay Poddar appearing for the petitioner made the statement that since the counter claims raised by respondent No. 1 were not considered and decided by the Arbitrator, award in question may be set aside and the case remitted to the Arbitrator for deciding afresh in accordance with law. Clause (a) of Section 16 of the Arbitration Act authorises the Court to remit the award to an Arbitrator where the award has left undetermined any of the matters referred to arbitration.
(4) Consequently award dated December 6,1990, is set aside and the matter is remitted with direction to Sh. N.H. Chandwani, Arbitrator, (0-55, Lajpat Nagar - I, New Delhi) to also decide the counter claims preferred by respondent No. 1. Under Sub-section (2) of said Section 16, Arbitrator is further directed to take decision in the matter within two months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Let a copy of this order be sent by the Registry to the Arbitrator forthwith.
