HANUMAN OIL MILLS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :-

(2.) ON an award dated the 6th October, 1961 given by Shri G. S. Gaitonde in'a'reference of disputes to him between M/s. Hanuman Oil Mills, and the Union of India under an alleged Arbitration agreement between parties contained in the General Conditions of Contract governing A/T No. A/3/23/58 dated the 31st October, 1958, the Union of India on November 4, 1961, moved an application under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in the court of Shri N. C. Gupta, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, for. the filing of the said award, making it a rule of the court and passing a decree in terms thereof. Notice of this application was issued to M/s. Hanuman Oil Mills and its three alleged partners and Shri G. S. Gaitonde was called upon to file the award in court. After the same was filed in court, notice of the filing of the award was given to the parties. M/s. Hanuman Oil Mills filed two sets of objections against the said award, one being dated the 30th April, 1962, and the other 1st May, 1962. Inter alia, M/s. Hanuman Oil Mills pleaded that there was no concluded contract between the parties in compliance with Article 299 of the Constitution of India and so, there was no arbitration agreement between the parties under which a reference could be made to an Arbitrator. It was also pleaded that the reference to Shri Gaitonde as Sole Arbitrator was a unilateral reference and so, the Sole Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to proceed with the reference and make an award therein. Several objections were also raised as to the conduct of the arbitration proceedings as well as to the maintainability of the award. The objections filed on behalf of M/s. Hanuman Oil Mills were traversed by the Union of India. ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following seven issues :

(3.) MR. Mehra urged that the subsequent correspondence between the parties placed on the record and duly proved shows that both the parties regarded a concluded contract having come into existence. In support of this contention that subsequent correspondence can be seen to find out whether a binding contract came into existence, he cited two decisions, one of the Calcutta High Court and the other rendered by the Supreme Court.