JAJODIA OVERSEAS PVT LIMITED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED Vs. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are cross-appeals and they can be disposed of by a common judgment. The Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (IDCO) is the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 571 of 1980 and Jajodia (Overseas) Private Ltd. (JOPL) is the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 572 of 1980.

(2.) Idco and JOPL entered into an agreement whereunder IDCO agreed to supply to JOPL 5,000. 00 tonnes of M. S. Rounds for export on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The goods were not supplied. By a letter dated 12/09/1969, IDCO cancelled the agreement and intimated to JOPL that its offer, which had culminated in the agreement, should be treated as withdrawn. There was some correspondence between the parties. Thereafter the claim against IDCO for damages for breach of contract made by JOPL was referred to the Chief secretary to the Government of Orissa, the arbitrator named in the agreement, for adjudication. The Chief secretary declined to act as arbitrator. Thereupon JOPL filed a suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, in the Calcutta High Court praying that the agreement be taken on file and the dispute between JOPL and IDCO be referred to an arbitrator to be nominated by the court. That plaint was returned to JOPL to be presented before the proper court. It was presented in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar on 4/04/1973, the learned Subordinate Judge appointed Mr H. Mohapatra, a retired Judge of the Patna High court "to act as the arbitrator to give his award on the disputes between the parties as enumerated in their respective pleadings and the order of this court. Reference be made to him requesting him to make the award by 30/06/1974. Copy of the plaint, written statement and the order of this court be sent to the arbitrator. "

(3.) The arbitrator entered upon the reference and after hearing parties and considering the material placed upon the record before him, gave anaward on 24/09/1985. In the preamble to the award the arbitrator set out briefly some of the facts aforementioned. The arbitrator stated that issues had been settled for adjudication and that the parties produced a large number of documents, examined witnesses and advanced elaborate arguments. The arbitrator, having given careful consideration to all the written statements, documents and evidence and the arguments, set out the conclusions to which he had come upon the issues raised. He concluded: