UNION OF INDIA Vs. GOYAL ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the notice for making the award dated 15/12/1992 a rule of the Court the respondent has challenged its validity by filing the objections through I.A. 2698/96. These, in brief, are as under: - i) That no notice under Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act by the Arbitrator was served on the respondent before making and publishing the award. ii) That the respondent vide letter dated 21/9/1992 wrote to the Arbitrator for supply of copies of the documents from the petitioner. Thereby acting upon the said request of the respondent the Arbitrator asked the petitioner to supply copies of all the documents addresseed to the respondent in connection with the case. iii) That the respondent vide letter dated 9/10/1992 wrote to the Arbitrator that the copies of the documents from the petitioner have still not been received with the result the respondent was not in a position to file his counter statement of facts and claim and requested the arbitrator to fix the date of hearing after getting the compliance report from the petitioner that the copies of all the documents have been sent to the respondent. The respondent sent a communication dated 8/12/1992 bo the Arbitrator that the petitioner has not supplied complete copies of the documents as asked for by the respondent. iv) That the Arbitrator has grossly violated the principles of natural Justice but has also misconducted himself and the proceedings without serving a final notice of proceeding ex parte against the respondent.

(2.) To counter the aforesaid allegations of the respondent the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to letter dated 21/9/1992 addressed to the Arbitrator, copy of which was pot sent to the Department whereby the respondent admitted that he was supplied with the copy of the claim preferred by the petitioner but had requested the Arbitrator to once again furnish him the photo copies of the same as he had lost his papers. However inspite of that the letter dated 21/9/1992 shows that the documents sought by the respondent were in respect of purchase order dated 6/12/1989 whereas the instant arbitration pertained to purchase order dated 6/11/1991.

(3.) Learned counsel has also relied upon letter dated 24/11/1992 which was sent through registered post. whereby all the photo copies of the letters regarding the arbitration case of the battery boxes as desired by the petitioner were sent. This letter was admittedly received on 27/11/1992. But this letter shows that the petitioner only sent the photo copies of the letters regarding the arbitration case of the Battery Boxes whereas the respondent was asking for the claim petition and the other documents in support of its c1aim.