MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Vs. FRUIT AND VEGETABLE MERCHANTS UNION REGD FRUIT AND VEGETABLE MARKET SUBZI MANDI DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) BY this application, registered as a suit, under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, (herein called 'the Act') the petitioners, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (herein called'the Corporation') ever that disputes having arisen between it and the Fruit and Vegetable Merchants Union (herein called 'the Union') were referred to the arbitration of the Lt. Governor, Delhi, respondent No. 2, who made his award dated 23rd May, 1970; that the Lt. Governor, Delhi, be directed to file his award or a signed copy of it and after giving notice of filing of the award, the award be made a rule of the Court and a decree be passed inaccordance therewith in its favour and against the Union. The Lt. Governor, Shri A, N. Jha, respondent No. 2, was requested to file the award. Shri S. C. Vajpeyi. Secretary to the Lt. Governor wrote letter, Exhibit C. W. I/I, to the address of the Registrar of this Court informing that there was no arbitration; that there were no regular proceedings and it was explained to the pardes that there would be no award and only an advice would be given; and that when the notice was received the position was informally explained to the Corporation. The Lieutenant Governor in his letter. Exhibit C. W. 1/3, forwarded the proceedings taken before him by the parties together with the advice given by him and stated that he did not act as an Arbitrator but merely advised the E parties how they should settle the dispute.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner-corporation vehemently contended that from the resume of events given above there could be no manner of doubt that reference to arbitration of the Lt. Governor was made by the parties. Relying upon commentaries on Evidence Act by Raju, Volume I at page 888 it was submitted that when a compromise is arrived at by means of correspondence the final document executed is. the result of negotiations which preceded it and the whole must be considered to determine what the compromise is as in such a case there is no question of verying the terms of a document but only of determining the circumstances under which it come into existence. It was contended that what is required to be determined is what was the intention of the parties in submitting the dispute to the Lt. Governor. Could it be said that the parties never intended the proceedings before the Lt. Governor to be arbitration proceedings or whether the context and the attending circumstances show that there was an arbitration agreement and the reference was made to the Lt. Governor. THE nature of the proceedings, goes the agreement, is for the Court to determine and is not dependent on the ipse dixit of the Lt. Governor by saying that he did not act as an Arbitrator but merely advised the parties how they should settle the dispute.