CHARANJIT KOCHHAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by M/s Charanjit Kochhar a partnership concern (for short the plaintiff) under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for directing the arbitrator to file the award and for passing a decree in terms of the award. It has been asserted that respondent no.1(Union of India) had invited tenders for the work under the name and style of Design and Construction of two Permanent Bridges at Ishnu and Bundey on road confluence Dukey Dzong in Bhutan. In pursuance of the said invitation to the tender the plaintiff had submitted the offer/tender at New Delhi. The same were submitted in the Office of Directorate General, Border Roads, Kashmir House, New Delhi. The bids were opened in Delhi and all negotiations were also held in Delhi. There were negotiations and discussions in Delhi and ultimately the tenders were accepted. The letter of acceptance was issued by Director General, Boarder Roads, Kashmir House, New Delhi vide the telegram of 2/4/1984.

(2.) During the course of execution of the work, respondent no.1 failed to fulfil their contractual obligation and even failed to make the payment to the petitioner. As a result thereto disputes arose between the parties i.e. the petitioner and the respondent no.1. Petitioner invoked the arbitration and respondent no.2 had been appointed as the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator entered into the reference on 21/12/1990 and has since submitted his award. Hence the present petition.

(3.) In pursuance of the notice issued the Union of India has preferred objections to the award. As per Union of India the petitioner had obtained the contract of construction of two bridges and in terms of the contract he had to complete the construction within 36 months after commencement of the work by the petitioner. The petitioner/plaintiff failed to complete the work. He violated the terms of the contract and the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator i.e. respondent no.2 to resolve the disputes. The award of the arbitrator has been assailed alleging that the arbitrator has not given any reasons recording the rejection of the claim of Union of India and further that the civil courts at Delhi has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Besides that plea has also been offered that the arbitrator has misconducted himself, because he failed to appreciate that it is the plaintiff who had failed to complete the work within stipulated time. He could not even complete the work after the extension was granted in this regard. The plaintiff was never serious to complete the work. He had wrongly allowed the claim of the plaintiff with respect to the expenditure of which Union of India has no responsibility. The plaintiff had failed to produce the original document like voucher on which the plaintiff had laid the claim and that it is the plaintiff who is the wrong doer and has violated the terms of the contract. The Union of India has cancelled the contract of the plaintiff after giving him full opportunity and the plaintiff, therefore, cannot take advantage of his own wrong.