APEX SALES AGENCY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Apex Sales Agency, a partnership concern entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1 /Union of India through Secretary,Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Production and Supplies, New Delhifor supply of Blankets Barrack Type 'A' Natural Grey as per the supply order. Thesaid supply order was subject to the condition that Contract Form Schedule 'B'(Revised 1965). Clause 16 of the said contract provided for reference of disputesand differences arisen under the Contract to the sole arbitration of the Secretary,Department of Defence Production and Supplies or any other person appointed byhim.

(2.) Disputes and differences arose between the parties. Consequently, Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Production and Supplies was approached, who appointed Commodore C.P.George VSM, respondent No. 2 as thesole Arbitrator vide his letter dated 5/04/1989. The respondent No. 2, the solearbitrator made and published his award on 21/06/1991. Pursuance to theapplication filed by the petitioner, the said award was ordered to be filed in theCourt. The arbitrator filed the award in Court, thereafter notice of the filing of theaward was issued to the parties. The petitioner herein wanted the award to bemade rule of the Court but the Union of India, respondent No. 1 has filed theobjections which are listed as IA. No. 2196/92.

(3.) The main objection raised by the respondent No. 1/Union of India is that theArbitrator without giving any reason, arbitrarily awarded Rs.75,000.00 as againstthe claim of the Union of India to the tune of Rs.9,08,766.00. The objector hadclaimed general damages against claim No.l. The contract was for supply of1,20,000 Blankets Barracks, which was to be supplied in different lots between Julyto September,1985. At the asking of the petitioner, these delivery dates were refixed from August to October,l 985. Again on the request of the petitioner, the timewas extended upto 3 1/12/1985 and then to 28/02/1986. Inspite ofthe time having been extended, the petitioner could supply only 19,026 Blanketsupto 28/02/1986 and failed to supply balance quantity. Thus, the breachhaving been committed by the petitioner herein, the objector automatically becameentitled to compensation as the contract was cancelled and the balance materialwas purchased at the risk and cost of the petitioner. The Arbitrator appredatedthat breach had been committed by the petitioner herein, inspite of that he allowedonly part claim and Arbitrarily disallowed the remaining. Counsel for thepetitioner on the other hand contended that Arbitrator was not required to givereasons. Clause 16 of the contract does not stipulates that the Arbitrator will givereasoned award. Hence, for not giving any reason no mis-conduct can beattributed nor pointed out. In fact no error can be found on the face of the award.This Court cannot substitute its decision in place of the Arbitrator. What weighedwith the Arbitrator while awarding Rs. 75,000.00 cannot be re-appreciated andexamined by this Court. This Court is not sitting as a Court of appeal. TheArbitrator is the best Judge of facts and of law as that Forum is chosen by the partiesfor settlement of their disputes. In this case, the Arbitrator has mentioned that hetook into consideration the pleadings, the evidence oral as well as documentaryand then came to that conclusion. Hence, it cannot be said that he did not take intoaccount the facts and law pleaded before him or that he Arbitrarily given theaward. According to Counsel for the petitioner, numerous breaches at differentstages committed by Union of India were pointed out before the Arbitrator. Hetook into consideration the same while deciding this claim. The breaches were alsonarrated in the reply and rejoinder as well as in the documentary evidence filed bythe present petitioner before the Arbitrator. Arbitrator took intoconsideration, thebreaches alleged against the present petitioner and the lapses and defaults pointedout on the part of the Union of India, whatever he found justified he awarded.