SRAMAJIBI STORES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals- come before me on a difference of opinion between my learned brothers Sachar, J. and Kumar, J.

(2.) The appellant had entered into a contract with the respondent to supply the following:

(3.) Subsequent to the contract being entered upon, it is not disputed, excise duty payable on cotton canvas was increased. The appellant, therefore, claimed a further sum of Rs. 2,21,695. 36 on account of increase in costs of production of the above articles. The respondent disputed its liability to pay the amount. Accordingly, the matter was referred to arbitration in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties. Shri P. H. Ramchandani, the sole arbitrator, by an award dated January 29, 1972 rejected the claim of the appellant observing that the duty was increased on the raw material, that is, on cotton canvas and not on the finished goods which were required to be supplied under the contract. He further held that the appellant could not take advantage of section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The respondent moved anapplication under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing of the award and making the same a rule of the Court. The appellant filed objections against the award. These two matters were registered as two suits on the Original Side of this Court. The learned Single Judge by his judgment dated April 30, 1973 made the award a rule of the Court and passed a decree in terms thereof. He dismissed the objections Filed by the appellant. In consequence, the appellant filed two appeals F.A.O. (OS) 47 and F.A.O.(OS) 48 of 1973. These came up for hearing before Sachar and Kumar, JJ. As noticed earlier, the two learned Judges have given differing opinions. Sachar, J. has held that Section 64A of ihe Sale of Goods Act would not be attracted and the view expressed by learned Single Judge was correct. Kumar, J on the' other hand, has taken the view that it would be attracted.