Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Of India vs M/S Saras Sales Corp. on 13 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57469
1 CR-504-2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 13 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 504 of 2004
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
M/S SARAS SALES CORP.
Appearance:
Shri Piyush Bhatnagar - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
By way of this revision challenge is made to order dated 18.03.2004
(Annexure P-1) passed by the District Judge, Hoshangabad in MJC No.9/2003
whereby upon an application under Section 14(2) of Arbitration Act, 1940 (for
short 'Act of 1940') when the award was filed before the Court, the Court has
refused to make the award rule of the Court and has rejected application under
Section 14(2) of the Act of 1940 and set aside the award.
2. The award was passed in favour of Commander Works Engineer
(CWE), Military Engineer Services (MES), Jabalpur against supplier who is
impleaded as present the respondent who was ex-parte before the Arbitration
Court, as well as has not appeared before this Court.
3. The Court has set aside the award on two grounds, firstly that only two
documentary evidences were produced before the Court one was award which was
exhibited as Ex.P-1 and second was cutting of newspaper Dainik Bhaskar dated
30.12.2003. The Court held that the application under Section 14(2) of the Act of
1940 has been filed by Union of India whereas nothing has been placed on record
that the Commander Works Engineer is authorized on behalf of Union of India to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57469
2 CR-504-2004
file award in Court and prosecute judicial proceedings. The Court further held that
the application has been filed by the Captain Ranjeet Singh, Incharge CWE, MES,
Pachmarhi (MP) but statements have been given by one Rampurti Tyagrajan and
there is nothing on record that he is authorized in the present case and on these
two grounds the Court has refused to make the award rule of Court and set aside
the award.
4. As per Section 30 of Arbitration Act, 1940 the award can only be set
aside on grounds as enumerated in the said Act. Section 30 of the Act of 1940 is
as under:-
"30. An award shall not be set aside except on one or more
grounds of the following grounds, namely:-
(a) that an arbitrator or umpire has misconducted himself or
the proceedings;
(b) that an award has been made after the issue of an order
by the Court superseding the arbitration or after arbitration
proceedings have become invalid under section 35;
(c) that an award has been improperly procured or is
otherwise invalid."
5. The available grounds are that the arbitrator or umpire has misconducted
himself or the proceedings or that the award is made in violation of some judicial
order or third that the award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid.
6. Nothing has been held by the Arbitration Court in passing the
impugned order Annexure P-1 that any of the grounds as available in Section 30
are made out.
7. As per Section 17 of the Act of 1940 once the Court does not remand
the matter to the arbitrator or does not set aside the award then the Court has to
pass judgment as per the award.
8. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court the impugned order
passed by the Arbitration Court is on irrelevant considerations which could not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57469
3 CR-504-2004
have formed the basis to set aside the award and to refuse it to make rule of the
Court. If there was some technical defect in the application then the Court could
have given some opportunity to the applicant therein to cure the default. Even
otherwise tender must have been invited by the CWE, MES, Pachmarhi for and on
behalf of President of India and it could not be said that Commander Works
Engineer of Military Engineer Services would not represent Union of India in the
matter of contract executed for supply of good to the Indian Army.
9. If there was some other technical defect like non-filing of authorization
letter on behalf of Captain Ranjeet Singh then the Court could have given some
opportunity to cure the defect but the application could not have been scuttled for
such technical defects without giving any opportunity to the applicant therein to
cure the defects and the Court should have restricted itself to section 17 and 30 of
the Arbitration Act, 1940.
10. Consequently, the impugned order Annexure P-1 is set aside and the
matter would now go back to the Commercial Court having jurisdiction over
Narmadapuram (formerly known as 'Hoshangabad'). Let the Principal District
Judge, Narmadapuram make over the case to the concerned Commercial Court of
competent jurisdiction which shall pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with
Section 17 and 30 of the Act of 1940 within a period of three months from the date
of taking up the proceedings.
11. The revision stands allowed in above terms.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
nks
