Delhi High Court
Avco Traders Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Sandeep Enterprises on 10 March, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No.51/2013 and CM 1835/2013 (for stay)
% 10th March, 2014
AVCO TRADERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Ruchit Batra, Mr. Abhishek
Varma, Advocates
Versus
SANDEEP ENTERPRISES ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. T.L. Aggarwal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This first appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 impugning the judgment dated 12.10.2012 of the
court below dismissing the objections filed by the appellants herein under
Section 34 of the Act. Objections were filed against the Award dated
13.5.2008 by which the claim petition filed by the respondent herein with
respect to supply of cloth was decreed for an amount of Rs. 1,69,080/- along
with interest @ 15% per annum from 1.3.2007 till the actual date of
recovery of the amount.
2. The arbitrator, as also the impugned judgment, records that appellants
in the guise of trying to compromise took three adjournments but ultimately
failed to appear, and which has been considered as a strategy to
unnecessarily delay the case. After the right to contest of the appellants
herein, the respondents in the arbitration proceedings, were closed, the
respondent herein/claimant in the arbitration proceedings led evidence by
producing the bill books and the bill files. The goods receipts/lorry receipts
by which goods were dispatched by Amritsar Transport Company to the
appellants were also filed. Similarly, the arbitrator notes that on the bills
issued there were signatures of the appellants. The respondent
herein/claimant also produced the relevant ledgers of the years 2006-2007
and 2007-2008. Considering the entire evidence the claim of the respondent
was allowed and Award was passed as stated above.
3. Counsel for the appellants argued before this Court that the claim
petition is misconceived because really only a reference was sought for
before the arbitrator of disputes and which is said to be clear from the claim
petition which is annexed at page 113 of this paper book. No doubt, the
claim petition is not in detail, however, considering that there is no specific
format of a claim petition and that the respondent/claimant has otherwise
proved the claim by means of filing the bills, challans, goods receipts and
the ledgers, the respondent was rightly held entitled to amount due on
account of sale of cloth, I do not find any illegality in the Award on the
ground of vagueness which is found in the claim petition. It also bears note
that the appellant no.1 has all along known that the claim amount is only
towards sale to it of goods/cloth and there is no surprise upon the appellants
by any alleged vagueness in the claim petition.
4. In my opinion, entire object of arbitration is defeated if parties are
allowed to implement strategy to delay the process, and this is more so when
small claims of small traders are concerned. No doubt, three adjournments
are not too many, but, they are not less either for the arbitrator to thereafter
close the case of the appellants herein. May be two views are possible on
the order of closing the right of appellants to contest, but, a Court which
hears objections under Section 34 of the Act will not interfere merely
because two views are possible. And, if the original court cannot interfere in
an Award with respect to such objections under Section 34, this Court in
first appeal has further restricted jurisdiction with respect to challenge to a
judgment dismissing objections against an Award in the facts such as in the
present case.
5. I may state that during the course of the hearing I put it to the counsel
for the appellants that if the appellants are interested in resolving the issue, I
can consider the aspect of reduction of pendente lite and future interests to
9% per annum, but, the counsel for the appellants says that he has no
instructions in this behalf.
6. While disposing off the appeal I accept the objection that there should
not be an Award against the Directors of the appellant no. 1-company
inasmuch as there is no record before the arbitrator that appellant nos. 2 to 5
herein are personally liable for the liability of the appellant no. 1. Therefore,
I hold that the Award against the appellant nos. 2 to 5 is set aside, and who
are the respondent nos. 2 to 5 in the arbitration proceedings.
7. In view of the above, except to the extent of accepting the appeal by
deleting the names of the appellant nos. 2 to 5 from the Award because they
do not have liability as fastened upon them by the Award, the appeal is
dismissed. The amount deposited in this Court by the appellants along with
accrued interest thereon be released to the respondent in appropriate
satisfaction of the claim due under the Award to the appellant no.1.
MARCH 10, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
godara
