On 23th June , a single judge bench of Delhi High Court of Justice V. Kamaleshwar Rao while dismissing an appeal held that an arbitral award is not invalid merely because the learned Arbitrator has not signed each and every page of the Award or that the award is typed in three different fonts.
Facts of the case:
The present petition was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside an arbitral award. The nature of the dispute involved in the petition is commercial with a value of Rs.5,15,54,292/-. The respondent is the manufacturer and the petitioner is the distributor of Ferrites and it is the admitted case of the parties that petitioner and respondent entered into a non-exclusive Distributorship Agreement. However, dispute arose between the parties regarding non payment and dishonour of cheque. After considering the evidence and material on record, the learned Arbitrator concluded that a sum of ₹54,14,934/- was recoverable by the respondent/claimant from the petitioner against its outstanding dues. The same was thus challenged.
Contention of the petitioner:
Mr Rohit Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the award was liable to be set aside on the following ground:
- It was contended that the impugned Award is liable to be set aside as the Award does not bear the signature of the Arbitrator on each and every page and even the Award has been typed in three different fonts on three different types of sheets.
- It was also submitted that as per the Distribution Agreement, no conciliation of accounts has been claimed by the respondent/claimant and that the cheques were taken in advance with an understanding not to present them for encashment without prior intimation to the petitioner.
- It was also submitted that the Arbitrator failed to appreciate the difference in the amount of claim, as at one place the respondent had claimed Rs. 40 lacs approx. and on the other hand it claimed Rs. 54,00,000/- in the claim petition, which makes it clear that the respondent has manipulated its record.
- Further it was submitted that the learned Arbitrator accepted the account statement at the time of final arguments without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the contents of the account statement.
Contention of the Respondent:
The following contentions have been submitted by Mr. Bharat Chugh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent:
- The respondent/claimant’s claims were rightly allowed by the Arbitrator and the impugned Award should be sustained.
- The cheques dated June 30, 2009 and July 7, 2009 were dishonoured on July, 2009 and July 14, 2009 respectively and accordingly the learned Arbitrator has rightly construed that the petitioner should clear the outstanding liability.
- It is stated by Mr. Chugh that no break-up whatsoever was provided by the petitioner for its claim of Rs. 2.5 crores under various heads and the Arbitrator rightly disallowed the same as the same were not substantiated and no evidence was lead to prove the same.
Observation and order of court:
The Hon’ble bench made the following observation:
- The plea of Mr. Goel that the award is typed in three different fonts and not signed in every page shall not make the award invalid.
- It is reiterated that learned Arbitrator is justified in his conclusion on the competency of L.D. Sharma to file the claim petition on behalf of the respondent Company.
- Learned Arbitrator was right in relying upon Ex.R-66, which is a communication of the respondent so filed by the petitioners. This communication is in response to the letter of the petitioner of the same date, i.e., July 9, 2009.
In the view of the above, the court found no merit in the petition and the same was thus dismissed without any cost.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
