UNION OF INDIA Vs. BHATIA TANNING INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question in this appeal is whether the arbitrator was guilty of misconducting the proceedings because he resorted to the method of publication in the newspaper for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent, Bhatia Tanning Industries, for the hearing of the case.

(2.) THESE are the facts. An agreement was entered into between the appellant. Director General of Supplies and Disposals and the respondent, Bhatia Tanning Industries (the Industries) on 1-11-1974. The Industries were to supply certain material to the Director-General. The case of the DirectorGeneral was that the Industries had committed default in making the supplies. So he raised a claim against the Industries on account of risk purchase. The agreement provided for arbitration. According to the terms of the arbitration clause the disputes between the parties were to be referred by the Director General to a sole arbitrator named by him. The Director-General appointed an arbitrator who resigned. Subsequently he appointed another arbitrator, Mr. P. C. Rao. Mr. Rao, the learned arbitrator, issued notice to the Industries requiring them to appear before him on a particular day fixed for hearing of the case. Such registered A.D. notices were issued twice at the last known address of the Industries at Kanpur. On both occasions the registered notices were returned with the report that the addressee was not available and had gone to Punjab.

(3.) SO publication in no way vitiates the proceedings. Nor has this prejudiced the Industries in any manner. In fact the arbitrator out of abundant caution, took this course of publication in the newspaper in order to safeguard the interests of the Industries so that they may take part in the proceedings before him and have their say.