Delhi High Court
Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 30 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: 74 (1998) DLT 639, 1998 (46) DRJ 599, (1998) 120 PLR 15
Author: M Sharma
Bench: M Sharma
JUDGMENT
M.K. Sharma, J.
1. In pursuance of disputes between the parties to the contract dated 25.9.1976 the same were referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Ram Bahadur, Additional Legal Adviser to the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs. The arbitrator so appointed entered into the reference and thereafter upon hearing the parties has passed an award on 28.7.1992. The said arbitrator filed the award alongwith the records of arbitration proceedings in this court, on receipt of which notices were issued to the parties. In pursuance thereof the respondent/Union of India tiled objections against the award on which I heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent at length.
2. The objection against the award is on the ground that the arbitrator committed an error apparent on the face of the record by not considering the letter dated 24.10.1979 of Registrar, Restrictive Trade Agreements, and also in holding that that the 'Fall Clause' is not attracted in the present case.
3. Ms. Jyoti Singh, counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the contents of the aforesaid letter dated 24.10.1979 would indicate that the petitioners were
giving a commission of 2-1/2% to the distributors and a commission of 5% to the sub-agents on A.C.Pressure Pipes and fittings of the List Price, and thus, the petitioners were selling those goods at a lower price than what was contemplated under the agreement and therefore the Fall Clause gets attracted.
4. The arbitrator while giving his award held that the Fall Clause is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case and he has cited his reasons for coming to the aforesaid conclusions. The arbitrator has held that payment of commission to the distributors and sub-agents is made for the services rendered by them and that there is no incidence of sale or purchase between the parties. The arbitrator has given his reasons for coming to the aforesaid conclusions. The arbitrator has further held that no evidence worth mentioning has been adduced by the respondent of actual sale of the subject store by the petitioner at a price less than the price quoted by the respondent, and that the petitioner submitted a certificate of not selling at a price lower than the price quoted by the petitioner in the contract. If the findings of the arbitrator are read as a whole it would be clear that he has made his thinking process known and there is no error of law pointed out nor is there any error apparent on the face of the record in coming to the aforesaid conclusion.
5. In my considered opinion no ground has been made out by the respondent for setting aside the award. Accordingly, the objections stand dismissed. The award dated 28.7.1992 is made a Rule of the Court and a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the award. The petition stands disposed of.
