PRITAM LAL BANSAL Vs. ANAND AGARWAL & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act') is to an Award dated 10th May 2005 passed by the arbitration panel of the Naraina Iron and Steel Merchants Welfare Association ('NISMWA') whereby the Petitioner was directed to pay Respondent No. 1 Sri Anand Agarwal a sum of Rs. 44,39,324/- within a period of 30 days. The arbitral record has been perused by this Court. It shows that the proceedings commenced on a complaint by Respondent No. 1 made against the Petitioner before the NISMWA on 17th February 2005. In the said complaint Respondent No. 1 stated that he had been working as a Commission Agent in the steel market in Loha Mandi, Naraina, Delhi and had been dealing with different merchants including the Petitioner, who is the proprietor of M/s. Shivam Steels, for many years. Respondent No. 1 claimed that he used to do commission business as well as finance the goods purchased by the Petitioner from different sellers. The bills of sellers were to be given to the Petitioner and payment thereof was to be made by him to the said sellers through Respondent No. 1. In his complaint Respondent No. 1 stated that "in whole dealings I have been tallying my account and at the time of last dealing between myself and said Shri Pritam Lal Bansal our accounts duly tallied and a sum of Rs. 44,39,324/- is found due towards Shri Pritam Lal Bansal to be recovered by me". Respondent No. 1 further stated that "there was no dispute at all in tallying of accounts". It was alleged that the Petitioner herein had been avoiding making payment of the aforementioned sum of Rs. 44,39,324/-.

(2.) The Constitution of NISMWA envisages resolution of the disputes between its members and non-members in respect of the business transactions by an arbitration panel. Although learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Respondent No. 1 was a Commission Agent and became a member of NISMWA only shortly before the complaint was filed by him, this Court does not propose to examine this question, since in any event as on the date of the commencement of arbitral proceedings both were members of NISMWA.

(3.) The arbitral record shows that at the hearing of the arbitration panel on 12th March 2005 the Petitioner appeared before the arbitration panel for the first time and stated as far as he was concerned no amount was due and payable to Respondent No. 1. Thereafter, on 26th April 2005 a statement of the Petitioner, signed by him, was recorded in which he stated that he was agreeable to any decision that may be given by the arbitration panel. However, significantly the proceedings also recorded the contention of the Petitioner that bills on the basis of which Respondent No. 1 was basing his claim were not genuine and that the dispute raised by Respondent No. 1 was adversely affecting the Petitioner's goodwill in the market. At the hearing on 27th April 2005 the Arbitral Panel noted that the Petitioner had sent a statement of accounts. However, he was not present. Unfortunately, the arbitral record does not contain the said statement of account produced by the Petitioner.