Food Corporation Of India vs Indian Council Of Arbitration & ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 3163 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         CM(M) No.359/2009

%                                                   17th July , 2014

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA            ......Petitioner
                 Through: Mr. Karunesh Tandon, Advocate.



                          VERSUS

INDIAN COUNCIL OF ARBITRATION & ANR.        ...... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Yakesh Anand, Advocate for
                           respondent No.1.
                           Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for
                           respondent No.2 with Mr. J.C. Seth.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) which states that FCI/petitioner

should not be directed to pay the enhanced fee as claimed by the Indian

Council of Arbitration.

2.           Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are

exercised with respect to an order passed by the Court or a Tribunal, i.e

judicial order.

C.M.(M) No.359 /2009                                           Page 1 of 2
 3.           On a query by the Court, counsel for the petitioner had no

option but to concede that there is no order of the arbitrator which is being

challenged by the petitioner. If that be so, and the issues are as to what

amounts the Indian Council of Arbitration can charge, the same can be

decided in an appropriate proceedings, but definitely not by means of a

petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

4.           Needless to state that the petitioner has not been correctly

legally advised inasmuch as jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of

India is not an original jurisdiction like a suit where issues of fact and law

are decided with respect to entitlement under any contract or any rule with

respect to payment of fees of an arbitrator.

5.           I note as stated by the counsel for the respondent no.1 that

arbitration proceedings have been completed in most of the about 325

arbitration cases pertaining to disputes between the petitioner and the

millers.

6.           In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the

same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




JULY 17, 2014                                  VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne