HARISH CHANDRA SAXENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filled under section 115 of thJ Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and order of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated 6th October, 1967 by which the learned Judge had dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under sections 33 and 5 of the Arbitration Act.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision are that the petitioner who is a contractor, in response to invitation to tender dated 1st December.. 1961, submitted a tender on 11th December, 1961 for carrying out the work of repairs to an approach road at a place in Morar, District Gwalior. The tender was rough.y at 149 per cent above the scheduled rate. On 16th December, 1951, the petitioner-contractor sent a letter to the respondent to the effect that a mistake had occurred in calculations and his rates were really 249 per cent above the schedule rate instead of 149 percent. This letter was sent under certificate of posting and there is a dispute between the parties as to the date when it was received by the respondents. However, on 19th December. 1951 a Major of the respondents sent a letter by registered post intimating that on 17th December, 1951, the Commander Works Engineer of the Delhi Area. on behalf of the President of India, had accepted the tender of the petitioner dated 11th December, 1951 and he called upon the petitioner to attend the office and sign the relevant formal agreement concerned. The parties are controverting the legal effect of this letter to bring about a binding contract on behalf of the President.

(3.) Thereafter disputes arose between the parties since the petitioner- contractor did not carry out any of the obligations under the alleged contract and the respondents claimed from the petitoner damages for breach of contract. The matter was, in accordance with the agreement, referred to an Arbitrator by name Lt. Col. G. M. Advani who made an award on 14th July, 1955 for a sum of Rs 7,176 against the petitioner. An application was made to the trial Court for making the award a rule of the Court which was allowed on 11th April, 1957, but appeal against the same filed in the High Court succeeded and by order dated 11th January, 1965, the High Court set aside the award on the ground that it had been made beyond time and no application for extension of time under section 28 of the Arbitration Act had been made. It is significant to notice that the High Court in passing the said order did not make any order under section 19 of the Arbitration Act superseding the reference or the arbitration agreement.