Delhi Power Company Ltd. vs Sarathy Engg. Corporation & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 982 Del

$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                        Date of Decision : February 13, 2012

+                        FAO(OS) 24/2002

       DELHI POWER COMPANY LTD.              ..... Appellant
           Through: Mr.Jayant   Nath,   Sr.     Adv.     with
                    Mr.B.C.Pandey, Advocate.

                               versus


       SARATHY ENGG. CORPORATION & ANR.
                                                 ....Respondents
              Through:   Mr.Sanjiv    K.Jha,    Advocate    for
                         Respondent No.1.
                         None for Respondent No.2.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. In view of the order dated 16.3.2003 it is Delhi Power Company Ltd. and not Delhi Vidyut Board which is the appellant.

2. Learned counsel for the parties state that since record of arbitration was never required to be filed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, whose award is a subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal, and further for the reason the learned Arbitrator has since expired, it would be a useless exercise to hear arguments in the appeal for the reason the record of the arbitration would have to be considered, an event which is impossible for the reason the learned Arbitrator is dead.

Record of arbitration was never called for. Even parties have lost the relevant records with them.

3. Learned counsels state that a via-media has been found, as per which, the one-fourth amount lying in deposit in this Court together with the interest accrued thereon be paid half and half to the appellant and respondent No.1.

4. We note that the award pronounced by the learned Arbitrator was a subject matter of challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, vide O.M.P. No.54/2011. The said O.M.P was dismissed vide impugned order dated August 21, 2001. The award was put into execution, and when stay was sought vide C.M. No.54/2002 in the instant appeal, the Division Bench directed that the sum deposited by the appellant (in terms of its liability under the award) would be released in half to the respondent No.1 without furnishing any security. Of the remaining, one-fourth further amount would be released upon furnishing security and the remainder to be retained in this Court. The respondent No.1 has accordingly received the half sum without furnishing security and one-fourth after furnishing security. The remainder is lying in deposit.

5. With the consent of the parties, the appeal stands disposed of recording the accord and satisfaction of the sum payable under the award. The accord and satisfaction would be that apart from the amount already received by respondent No.1 out of the balance sum lying in deposit (which we clarify would include the interest which has accrued on the deposit), half would be paid to respondent No.1 and the remainder half would be paid to Delhi Power Company Ltd.

6. Accordingly, we need not to decide the issue on merits nor should we bother to modify the award for the reason, the accord and satisfaction thereof has been recorded, in terms hereinabove, and we leave the parties to bear their own costs in the appeal.

7. Needless to state, security furnished by respondent No.1 while receiving one-fourth sum deposited by the appellant, in terms of the order dated 13.8.2002, stand discharged and if any titles/documents have been filed/submitted, the same be returned to the respondent No.1 after necessary endorsement.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(PRATIBHA RANI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 13, 2012 KA