LARSEN AND TUBRO LIMITED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT , J.-

(2.) IN this case after the awards ware received from the arbitrators, notice of filing of the awards was issued to the parties on 18th November, 1987. On receipt of notice, the State of Rajasthan, respondent herein, filed objections under Sections 33, 30, 16 and 15 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside/remitting the majority award date 12th September, 1987 passed by Shri Chela Ram Chopra and Shri (Dr.) C.P. Gupta arbitrators and also the minority award dated 3rd October, 1987 passed by Shri S.K. Gupta arbitrator. The averments made in the objections were controverted by M/s. Larsen and Toubro, petitioner herein in their reply dated 12tb December, 1988. Thereafter the respondent filed rejoinder on 26th April, 1989. The following issues were framed an 3rd May, 1989 :

(3.) AS regards the delay in passing the award, Shri Sudarsban Singh in his affidavit has stated that the whereabouts of Shri S.K. Gupta, one of the arbitrators were not known during the period February 1986 to July 1987 and this fact has not been controverted by the respondent/objector. The letter dated llth July, 1987 written by Dr. C.P. Gupta to Shri C.R. Chopra, copy of which was also endorsed to Shri S.K. Gupta, also shows that Shri S.K. Gupta for the first time had suggested that a meeting to finalise the award should be held at Delhi in mid July 1987. The letter dated 22nd August, 1987 written by Shri C.R. Chopra to Shri S.K. Gupta further shows that Shri C.R. Chopra was not even aware of the telephone number of Shri S.K. Gupta at Jaipur. Further letter dated 14th July, 1987 written by Shri C.R. Chopra to Dr. C.P. Gupta, copy of which was also endorsed to Shri S.K. Gupta, also shows that it was not possible for Shri C.R. Chopra to contact Sbri S.K. Gupta. AS stated hereinabove Shri S.K. Gupta in his affidvit has not mentioned anything as to whether he had suggested any date of August 1987 when he could be available in Delhi for joint deliberations. From these facts it is clear that the delay in making the award was also because of the non-availability of Shri S.K. Gupta, who was appointed by the respondent/objector as their arbitrator. AS the delay has been satisfactorily explained, the ratio of the judgment in the case of Bhogi- lal (supra) is not applicable to the present case.