Pearl Fasteners vs Union Of India (Uoi)
2004 Latest Caselaw 1081 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment dated 26.9.1998 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in S.No.519/95 whereby the learned Judge has made the award of the Arbitrator, Rule of the Court.

2. Facts of the case are that the Railways by invoking Clause 2900 of the Indian Standard Condition Contract approached the General Manager for appointment of sole arbitrator to settle the disputes having arisen between parties.

3. The Arbitrator upon considering the claims and counter-claims returned an award dated 14.6.1993, which award was sought to be made rule of court before the Additional District Judge in Suit No.519/95. Various objections were raised before the learned District Judge inter alia that the Arbitrator has mis-conducted himself and the proceedings and the award was improperly procured. There was no contract between the Objector and Union of India. Union of India had never purchased hundred metric tonnes fish-bolts net at the risk and cost of the Objector as also the award is based on no evidence. The same objections have been reiterated before me in FAO No.48/1999.

4. From a perusal of the order of the Additional District Judge it appears to me that he has based his conclusions on judgments of the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Indian Carbon Ltd., 1988 Vol. VIII ALR 394 and Gujrat Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. Unique Erectors (Gujrat) (P) Ltd. &Anr., . The same can hardly be faulted with.

5. From the reading of the award, I find that the Arbitrator mentions that he has taken upon himself the burden of the said reference and entered upon reference on 27.05.1992, which shows that he has considered the objections of jurisdiction. Further he has heard and examined parties on various dates and thereafter considering the oral submissions and documentary evidence has made an award dated 14.6.1993.

6. Following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in judgments mentioned above, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment dated 26.9.1998 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi.

7. FAO 48/1999 is dismissed. No order as to costs.