M/S Pioneer Industries Ltd. vs Govenment Of National Capital & ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 3716 Del

$~50
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                         O.M.P. 835/2014

%                       Judgement Reserved on: 01st August, 2014
                        Judgement pronounced on: 14th August, 2014

M/S PIONEER INDUSTRIES LTD.                         .... Petitioner

                   Through :       Ms. Rana Praveen Siddiqui, Adv.

                          versus

GOVENMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL & ANR. ... Respondents

                          Through :      Mr. Rajiv Nanda, ASC with
                                         Mr.Manish Kumar, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

I.A.No.14147/2014(for exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

O.M.P. 835/2014 & I.A.No.14146/2014 (for stay)

1. Vide the present petition filed under Section 34 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act'), the petitioner has challenged the award dated 22.04.2014, vide

which the learned arbitrator has held that no case had been made out

against the respondent and the claim was dismissed.

2. The main contention of the petitioner in the present petition is

that the learned arbitrator has failed to follow the principles of natural

justice and therefore the award is non est. It is submitted that the

notices purported to have been issued by learned arbitrator on

22.3.2014 and 19.4.2014 were never received by the petitioner. It is

further submitted that learned arbitrator has disregarded the order of

the hon'ble High Court dated 23.11.2012 in Globus Spirits limited

versus Government of NCT of Delhi and Others which was an order

in rem wherein it was directed that till further orders only 15 paisa

per excise security seal should be charged by the respondents instead

of 37 paisa per excise security seal, as demanded. On these facts, it is

submitted that award is liable to be set aside.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record.

4. From the award it is clear that the petitioner had not presented

any claim before the learned arbitrator. He had also not filed any

affidavit or any document to substantiate his claim. It was in the

light of these facts that the learned arbitrator reached to the

conclusion that no case is made out against the respondent. It is

settled law that an award can be challenged on the ground mentioned

in Section 34 of the Act. No contention has been raised by the

petitioner that the award is in contravention of the public policy or

that he was under some incapacity, therefore, could attend the

arbitration proceedings. It is also not the case of the petitioner that

the award is not valid under any substantive law of the land. His only

contention is that he was not given proper notice of the arbitral

proceedings. His contention is that he did not receive notices dated

22.3.2014 and 19.4.2014 allegedly issued by the learned arbitrator.

5. Rule 19 (1) of the Act clearly states that arbitral tribunal shall

not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure or Indian Evidence Act.

6. Chapter V of the Act deals with the procedure to be followed

by the Arbitrator in the arbitral proceedings. Section 23 of the Act

which read:

23. Statement of claim and defence.-- (1) Within the period of time agreed upon by the parties or determined by the arbitral tribunal, the claimant shall state the facts supporting his claim, the points at issue and the relief or remedy sought, and the respondent shall state his defence in respect of these particulars, unless the parties have otherwise agreed as to the required elements of those statements.

(2) The parties may submit with their statements all documents they consider to be relevant or may add a reference to the documents or other evidence they will submit.

7. Section 23 of the Act requires that a statement of claim stating

all the points in issue and the relief sought, along with all the relevant

documents be presented before the arbitrator.

8. It is apparent from the award that initially none attended the

proceedings on behalf of the petitioner despite service of notice. On

reminder notice to petitioner one Avtar Singh, Attorney (although no

document filed) appeared on 26.10.2013 and he sought time to file

statement of claim. Thereafter on 10.1.2014, Avtar Singh appeared

and filed the alleged statement of claim. The learned arbitrator found

that it was just a copy of letter dated 7.11.2013 addressed to Deputy

Commissioner (Excise) unsupported by affidavit. The learned

arbitrator advised the petitioner to file claim statement in proper

format duly supported by affidavit. Thereafter the petitioner neither

filed any claim statement nor affidavit and also stopped attending the

proceedings. None attended the proceedings on date fixed i.e.

1.2.2014 on behalf of the petitioner. The learned arbitrator took the

pain to sent notices to the known addresses of Avtar Singh, Attorney

of petitioner for 22.3.2014 and 19.4.2014.

9. It, therefore, cannot be said that the learned arbitrator has acted

in haste or did not give sufficient opportunities to the petitioner to file

his claim or his documents. The petitioner has not stated any reason

in his petition which prevented him from presenting his statement of

claim, affidavit or documents before the learned arbitrator. No

explanation has come from petitioner for abandoning the arbitral

proceedings, by not attending it on the date fixed.

10. Section 25 of the Act empowers the learned arbitrator either to

terminate the proceedings on account of failure by the claimant to file

his statement of claim in accordance with sub Section (1) of Section

23 or on its discretion continue with the proceedings and make the

arbitral award on the basis of evidences before it even where a party

fails to attend the hearing or produce any evidence. It is clear that the

petitioner, despite directions and taking time, did not file his

statement of claim supported by an affidavit. The petitioner only

filed copy of a letter addressing the respondent. It is thus a case,

where the petitioner failed to file a proper claim statement duly

supported by affidavit and where he has not come up with any

explanation at all for this act. Under Section 19 of the Act the

arbitrator is given power to conduct its proceedings in the manner it

considers appropriate. The learned arbitrator, before passing of the

award, had issued two letters to petitioner, in the name of its attorney,

at all the known addressed of the attorney.

11. It, therefore, is clear that the learned arbitrator has duly

followed the prescribed procedure. It is also apparent that the learned

arbitrator had given ample opportunities to the petitioner to present

his claim and documents. The arbitral award does not suffer with any

infirmity. It is also not in violation of any substantive law. There is

also no error apparent on face of award and it is also not against any

public policy. There are no grounds to interfere with the award.

12. The petition has no merit. The petition and pending application

are hereby dismissed.

DEEPA SHARMA (JUDGE) AUGUST 14, 2014 rb