Union Of India & Anr. vs S. Narayan & Sons
2010 Latest Caselaw 1355 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+          O.M.P. 361/2002

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                            ..... Petitioner
                   Through:                      Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.

                                            Versus

S. NARAYAN & SONS                                ..... Respondent
                                 Through:        Mr. Shiv Khorana with
                                                 Mr.Ashish Khorana, Advocate

%                                     Date of Decision : MARCH 11, 2010

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?   No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                                      No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?                      No.


                                  JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 34 of Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1996")

challenging the arbitral Award dated 27th June, 2002 and the

Corrigendum dated 5th July, 2002 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, Mr.

B.L. Nishad, Joint Secretary and Legal Adviser, Ministry of Law,

Justice & Company Affairs.

2. At the outset, Mr. Shiv Khorana, learned counsel for respondent-

claimant stated that two contracts had been awarded at the same time to

two contractors for printing of Sainik Samachar, a weekly magazine

floated by petitioner-UOI. While the first contract was awarded to

Samrat Press, the second contract was awarded to present respondent-

claimant. He pointed out that both Samrat Press and present

respondent-firm were owned by the same family. He also stated that

both the contracts were executed simultaneously.

3. Mr. Khorana stated that as correspondence and disputes in both

the contracts were similar, they were referred to Mr. B.L. Nishad, Sole

Arbitrator, who rendered similar awards in both the contracts on the

same date, namely, 27th June, 2002.

4. He further stated that while the objection petition filed by the

petitioner-UOI against Samrat Press was listed as O.M.P. 367/2002

titled as Union of India & Anr. Vs. M/s. Samrat Press, present

objection petition was listed as O.M.P. 361/2002.

5. Mr. Khorana pointed out that objection petition being O.M.P.

367/2002 was dismissed vide order dated 3rd October, 2008 passed by

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw except with regard to the rate

of interest which was modified from 18% to 9% per annum. However

in an appeal filed by Samrat Press being FAO(OS) No. 39/2009, the

rate of interest was restored to 18% per annum.

6. Mr. Khorana submitted that the present case was fully covered by

the judgment dated 3rd October, 2008 passed by learned Single Judge in

O.M.P. No. 367/2002 as well as Division Bench's judgment dated 23rd

July, 2009 passed in FAO(OS) 39/2009. He pointed out that the

petitioner-UOI had accepted the aforesaid order of the Division Bench

and had paid the awarded amount.

7. Consequently, keeping in view the fact that tender terms,

disputes, Awards and objections filed in OMP 367/2002 as well as

present O.M.P. 361/2002 are similar, I am of the view that the present

matter is fully covered by the judgment dated 3rd October, 2008 passed

by learned Single Judge in O.M.P. No. 367/2002 as well as Division

Bench's judgment dated 23rd July, 2009 in FAO(OS) 39/2009. Mr.

A.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for petitioner-UOI was also unable to

convince me that the present objections are any different from the

objections filed in O.M.P. No. 367/2002. Accordingly, present

objection petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs.

MANMOHAN, J.

MARCH 11, 2010 rn