PHOENIX COTTON TAPE FACTORY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) PHONENIX Cotton Tape Factory, Delhi, the name and style in which, at all material times, a Mr. S. Aggarwal carried on business as sole proprietor. He is the petitioner in this case. In 1963 he submitted a tender to the Director General of Supplies and Disposals at the latter's office in Bombay for certain goods required by the Union of India. The tender was accepted and a letter of acceptance was issued. In the contract operative between the parties there was an arbitration clause which provided that disputes arising under the contract would be "referred tu the sole arbitration of the Director General of Supplies and Disposals or of some other person appointed by him."

(3.) IT seems to me that the crucial question is what, if any, meaning is to be attached to paragraph 4 of the "Special Instructions" qualified by the words "At Delhi" appended thereto in hand. IT is a well-known " principle of construction of documents that hand-written or type-written matter is to be given preference over what is printed : See Messrs Sha Moolchand Kesarimull by its partner. Presumably that is for the reason that what is inserted in hand or type-written in a printed form may be taken to show a particular application of mind, whereas it is not always sure that the printed matter was fully read and understood by the parties, more especially where, as here, the document is unwieldy and complicated. I perceive no reason why that principle should not apply here.