RITES LTD Vs. SHABIR AHMED & SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONLY a limited issue is called for decision of this Court in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. What the objector argues is that the Award should not have been passed against the petitioner/RITES inasmuch as the petitioner was only acting as an agent of the disclosed principal namely the Governor of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.). The petitioner, therefore, contends that the Award which has been passed against the petitioner/RITES could not have been passed and the Award had to be passed against the owner being the disclosed principal namely Governor of U.P.

(2.) IN my opinion, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is well founded and therefore the objections must succeed. The invitation to tender which is filed at page 42 of the paper book shows that the petitioner was acting for Governor of U.P. The relevant portion of this notice inviting tender reads as under:

(3.) THE aforesaid facts makes it more than clear that the contractual relationship was between the respondent No.1 who performed the work and the Director U.P. Technical Education Department, Rawatpur, Kanpur through Governor of U.P., who awarded the work. Petitioner/RITES was only acting for and on behalf of the disclosed principal, namely, the Governor of U.P.