UNION OF INDIA Vs. PEECO HYDRAULIC PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arguments had been addressed and in fact confined to the sole question as to whether there is an arbitration agreement between the parties or not.

(2.) This question arises as a result of the following facts.

(3.) In pursuance of the arbitrator having filed the award notices had been issued regarding filing of the award and for making it a rule of the court. On behalf of the Union of India it has been pointed that it does not Intend to File any objections and it prayed for the award to be made a rule of the court. Objections had been Filed by M/s Peeco Hydraulic Pvt. Ltd. pertaining to the question in controversy. It was pleaded that the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, South Central Railway had submitted an indent to the Director General of Supplies and Disposal for supply of an Oil Hydraulic Spring Testing machine. On the basis of the said indent the Director General of Supplies and Disposal invited tenders for supply for Oil Hydraulic Spring Testing machine to the Chief Mechanical Engineer, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. On 6/12/1979 the objector submitted its tender documents along with the quotations for supply of Peeco brand Oil Hydraulic Spring Testing machine, namely Controller of Store, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. The tender document contained various clauses which required to be filled up. One of the clauses was as to if the objector would agree to the arbitration of an officer in the Ministry of Law being appointed by Director General Supplies and Disposal. The objector had clearly placed a 'NO' against that column. The tender of the objector was the lowest. It was accepted and formal letter of acceptance had been issued. Clause 24 had been added regarding the arbitration clause. It remained unnoticed but the objector had never agreed to such an arbitration. Accordingly it has been asserted and urged that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties.