Delhi High Court
M.P. State Cooperative Consumer ... vs National Cooperative Consumer ... on 31 August, 2016
$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. 32/2016
M.P. STATE COOPERATIVE CONSUMER
FEDERATION LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Vikrant Singh Bais, Advocate.
versus
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE CONSUMER
FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 31.08.2016
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
IA No.16682/2016
1. This is an application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that even after taking into
account the delay in re-filing, the petition would be within the period of 120
days from the date of passing of the Award.
3. In view of the aforesaid statement, the delay in re-filing the appeal is
condoned.
IA No.10626/2016 & 10627/2016
4. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
O.M.P. 32/2016
5. The petitioner, M.P. State Cooperative Consumer Federation Ltd. is a
Member of the National Cooperative Consumer Federation of India Limited
(respondent no.1). Respondent no. 1 is a Multi-State Cooperative Society
registered under the provisions of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act,
1984.
6. The disputes involved pertain to certain inter se transactions between
the petitioner and respondent no.1. Admittedly, the reconciliation of
accounts between the said parties was undertaken at the petitioner's office at
Bhopal on 19.01.2000 and it was found that a sum of `12,37,312.94 was due
and payable by the petitioner to respondent no.1. It is the petitioner's case
that the aforesaid reconciliation did not fully take into account all inter se
transactions inasmuch as the payments made by the petitioner to respondent
no.1 and their branches at Bombay, Ahmedabad, Delhi, Guwahati and
Kanpur were not accounted for.
7. The history of litigation between the parties is a chequered one and
spans over a decade and a half. It began by respondent no.1 making a claim
before the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Government of India
(CRCS) for recovery of the sum of `12,96,332/-. It is not necessary for the
purposes of the present petition to narrate the history of litigation; suffice it
to mention that the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court
(W.P. No.6767/2007) against an order of the Appellate Authority of CRCS.
In the said petition, this Court directed that the decretal amount deposited
with respondent no.1 be kept in a separate interest bearing account. The said
writ petition was finally dismissed. However, the Division Bench allowed
the petitioner's appeal (LPA No.717/2012) by an order dated 30.12.2012
and set aside the order dated 04.05.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge
as well as the order of the Appellate Authority of CRCS passed on
20.03.2007. The Division Bench further remanded the matter to CRCS for
fresh adjudication on merits of the plea taken by the petitioner.
8. Pursuant to the aforesaid order , CRCS considered the disputes and by
an order dated 29.08.2013 referred the matter to a Sole Arbitrator as CRCS
was of the view that the adjudication of the pleas raised by the petitioner
would require reconciliation of accounts of both the parties.
9. Before the Arbitrator, efforts were made for reconciliation of
accounts. However, the accounts could not be reconciled. It is the
petitioner's case that it had made all efforts for reconciliation of accounts
but the same were frustrated by respondent no.1; respondent no.1 disputed
the aforesaid contention.
10. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Arbitrator considered the claims
made by the petitioner and rejected the same, principally on the ground that
neither the reconciliation of accounts was done by the parties nor the
petitioner could substantiate its claims through specific documentary
evidence. The relevant extracts from the Award reads as under:-
"67. Even before me, Respondent No.1 did not make any
endeavour to substantiate its claim through specific
documentary evidence. It merely kept on stating that the
documents are voluminous and have already been filed with
the Central Registrar. But no details or copies thereof were
furnished nor any specific cases/documents provided. In any
case, once these arbitration proceedings were initiated it was
for Respondent 1 to put up his defence in these proceedings
and duly substantiate the same with documents to my
satisfaction. Respondent 1 has failed to do so, especially in
view of the absence of reconciliation of its accounts with that
of NCCF. It would, however, be open to Respondent 1 to raise
appropriate claim, if need be, upon reconciliation of accounts
with specific documentary evidence."
11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contested the
aforesaid finding and submitted that all the relevant documents including the
balance sheet, ledger accounts, vouchers and other documentary evidence
were provided to the CRCS and the same were part of the record. However,
it is not disputed that the petitioner had not pointed out specific documentary
evidence in the arbitral proceedings so as to enable the Arbitrator to
adjudicate the claims raised by the petitioner. There is no ground in the
present petition that this had been done by the petitioner. The fact that
certain documents were part of the record with CRCS would be of no
assistance to the Arbitrator as the same were not before him; at any rate, the
same were not referred to by the petitioner in the arbitral proceedings
12. It is well settled that the approach of the Courts while considering a
petition for setting aside an award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 is one of non-interference. The arbitral award cannot
be challenged except on the limited grounds as specified in Section 34(2) of
the Act. In the present case, I am unable to accept that any of the grounds
specified under the said section have been established. Clearly, the arbitrator
could not be expected to accept the petitioner's claims without the necessary
documentary evidence. The impugned Award cannot be stated to be in
conflict with the Public Policy of India as is sought to be urged by the
petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
AUGUST 31, 2016
MK
