DAWAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner challenges the Award dated 5.6.2003, passed by the Sole Arbitrator. The Award came to be passed on account of disputes between the parties under the contract wherein the petitioner was supplier of shoes and the respondent/Union of India was the buyer.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner has pressed his objections only with respect to Claims (A),(B) and (C) as decided by the Arbitrator.

(3.) Claim (A) was the claim of the petitioner for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,91,163/- on the ground that the payment with respect to the subject invoice numbered 579/6 dated 11.10.93 and relatable RR No. 657239 dated 11.10.1993 was not released to the petitioner/claimant. The Arbitrator has found that this payment was in fact made to the petitioner and the Arbitrator accepted the certificate as filed by the respondent/Union of India of its bankers that payment of the goods pertaining to the subject invoice /railway receipt was paid to the petitioner on 24.11.1993. Mr. Khorana, on behalf of the petitioner urges that the bankers of the petitioner however, informed the petitioner that payment with respect to this invoice and railway receipt was not received. I am unable to agree with the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner. Once the respondent shows that the account of the petitioner was in fact specifically credited with respect to subject invoice/railway receipt, the petitioner cannot contend that no payment was made. Mr. Khorana sought to take me through certain documents to show that payment has been received with respect to the other invoice and not the subject invoice. However, I note that the argument and the documents relied upon would be incomplete and unsustainable because Mr. Khorana cannot sustain his arguments until and unless for the entire financial year, the complete details of the credits in the bank account of the petitioner are shown, because only then, it would become clear that the payment made with respect to the subject invoice/railway receipt is not as found by the Arbitrator and proved by the respondent, but for some other invoice/railway receipt. Admittedly, before the Arbitrator, no such document being the complete credits in the bank account of the petitioner during the relevant financial year has been filed. If that be so, no objection can be sustained under Section 34 because the finding of the Arbitrator cannot be said to be in any manner illegal or perverse. In my opinion, the Arbitrator has validly dealt with this aspect in the following paragraphs and which findings I agree with. "Claim No.(A) The claimants have claimed an amount of Rs.3,91,163.00, towards 95% of the Bill No. 579/6 dt. 11.10.93, with interest @ 27% from due date, till actual realisation. AWARD It has been submitted by the respondents' counsel, Shri P.B.Lal that the amount Rs.3,91,163.00 in respect of R/R No. 657239 dt. 11.10.93 has been released to the claimants as the amount of Rs.3,91,163.00 is included in the Demand Draft No. 125973 dt. 22.11.93 of Rs.8,30,456/00 (U-68 and U- 69) which has been encashed by M/s Dawar Rubber Industries on 24.11.93. Shri P.B.Lal's submissions have a force as it is apparent from CCA's letter (U-53) dt. 27.08.96-Sl. No.1 that the amount of Rs.3,91,163.00 has been released to the claimants. S/Shri Ranjit Singh and Desh Pande, Sr. A.O.have also shown the entry in the outward Bill Register (U-64) maintained for the purpose in CCA's Office (the entries have also been seen by the claimants' Advocate, Shri Shiv Khorana) wherein it has been mentioned that the claimants have supplied 14795 pairs against which an amount of Rs. 3,91,163.00 has been paid vide Bill No. 579/6 dt. 11.10.93 i.e. the alleged 95% payment has been made to the claimants vide the aforesaid bills. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that when the claimants have already received Rs.3,91,163.00 towards the alleged 95% of Bill No. 579/6 dt. 11.10.93, their claim has no stand hence the claim with interest @ 27 per annum from alleged due date, is rejected."