Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Vanilal Bansilal & Sons on 31 October, 2001
Equivalent citations: 95 (2002) DLT 872
Author: V Aggarwal.
Bench: V Aggarwal
JUDGMENT
V.S. Aggarwal. J.
1. Shri R.N. Poddar had been appointed as the sole arbitrator and had submitted his award dated 29.11.1995.
2. In pursuance of the award having been filed notices had been issued to the parties. Objections have been filed on behalf of Vani Lal Bansi Lal asserting that it is an ex parte award without recording any reasons. The decision of the arbitrator is stated alleged being not a decision on merits because it is claimed that no evidence was adduced by Union of India. Reasonable notice had not been given to the objector and non-appearance of the objector was only accidental. Since there was no evidence there is error apparent on the face of the record and therefore the award is liable to be set aside.
3. In the reply filed the assertions of the objector have been controverter. It has been pleaded that many notices were sent to the objector but no reply was received. Otherwise also it is pleaded that the arbitrator all relevant documents were placed before the arbitrator. He has considered the same. There is thus no ground to set aside the award.
4. On the date fixed only appearance had been put in on behalf of the petitioner. There was no appearance on behalf of the objector.
5. Perusal of the objections clearly show that in the first instance it has been alleged that the non-appearance of the objector was accidental. It is not the case of the objector that he was not served. Once the objector had been served and he did not appear before the arbitrator he was justified in proceeding ex parte. On that count thus the award cannot be set aside.
6. The only other objection raised has been that there was no evidence before the arbitrator and therefore the award requires to be set aside. Perusal of the award shows that the claim of the Union of India was against the objector for a specified sum with interest. The union of India had entered into a contract with the objector firm on 17.10.1987 for supply of 46300 kg of lead based anti-friction bearing metal to be delivered by 15.1.1998. The delivery period was extended from time to time. The last extension was given by the letter of 25th August, 1988 at the request of the objector. The objector firm could only supply 18,786 kg of stores. The objector failed to deposit 10% of the security. Thereupon the order has to be placed on the next lowest offerer and in this process Union of India suffered a loss of Rs. 3,25,015/-.
7. The documents in this regard were before the arbitrator and therefore he was justified in going through the same. It cannot therefore be termed that the award of the arbitrator is not based on any material on the record.
8. Otherwise also it is a finding of fact arrived at by the arbitrator which cannot be described to be erroneous or that no other view was possible. In that view of the matter there is not ground to interfere.
9. Accordingly the award is made a rule of the court and decree in terms of the award is passed.
