B MANIK PETER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in these appeals are the legal representatives of one B. Manik Peter who had obtained an award against the Union of India for Rs. 37,874-12-2 besides interest and costs made on 5/12/1956. The award-holder had preferred an application under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'act') calling upon the arbitrator (the umpire) to file his award coupled with a prayer for the passing of a decree in terms of the award. The Union of India not only resisted that application but preferred an application under S. 30 and 16 of the Actfor setting aside the award, and, in the alternative, remitting the award back to an umpire to be appointed by the Madras High court for reconsideration. The learned single Judge of the Madras High court who heard the two petitions together allowed the award-holder's application and dismissed that of the Union of India. A division bench of the same High court hearing appeals preferred from the said order set aside the award. By the present appeals the appellants ask for restoration of the order of the single Judge.

(2.) The facts necessary for the. disposal of the appeals lie in a small compass. B. M. Peter, deceased, had entered into four contracts with the Union of India for the supply of coirfibre according to certain specification. The contracts were in the usual form of calling of invitations to tender and acceptance there of The goods were to be put on rail at Cochin for transport to kanpur There was provision for inspection of the goods by a representative of the Union of India at Cochin before the goods were put on rail. The coirfibre was to be delivered 'in new, clean and dry condition in bales of 1 12 Ibs. each. The baling was to be carried out in 5 wooden or bamboo batons each at least 3' in length and secured in containers. The bales were to be rectangular in shape and approximately 3/ X 1 3/4 / in dimension. The net weight of coirfibre in any bale was not to be less than 112 Ibs. Clauses 11 and 12 of the invitation to tender and instructions with schedule in each case provided as follows :

(3.) Before the umpire only one witness was examined on behalf of the Union to produce certain files or papers. These documents were admitted in evidence but the umpire held that they did not disclose that "the goods were weighed before they were taken delivery of from the railway or immediately thereafter". The reasoning of the umpire was as follows :