VIVEK JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To the dissatisfaction of the petitioner, the Arbitrator has dismissed his claim on the ground that the .same is barred by res-judicata. While petitioner insists it is not, the respondent not only claims that it is, it also stresses that I cannot adjudicate on the matter. The battle lines are thus clearly drawn.

(2.) The scenario does not require a broad canvass. The Award itself provides it for us. The Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (D.E.S.U. for short) intended to sell the old 'B' Thermal Power Station of Rajghat Power House and invited tenders for the same. Among the tenders offered one was from the petitioner and it so happened that his tender offer was accepted and a sale letter was issued. The agreed sale price was Rs. 1,65,61,007.00 besides local taxes. The petitioner deposited in all a sum of Rs. 44,06,251.00 but the D.E.S.U. cancelled the contract on the ground that the petitioner had not made payments towards the sale value as per the agreed schedule. It also forefeited the earnest money of rupees one lakh and withheld the amount of Rs. 44,06,251.00 . This gave rise to rounds of litigation. The first was in the form of a writ petition challenging the order of cancellation of the contract of sale. It was CW 2440 of 1988 and was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on December 2,1988. A special leave petition in the Supreme Court against that order met its Waterloo on December 7, 1988. The order of the Supreme Court runs as under:

(3.) Yet another round of litigation took the form of arbitration proceedings. The basis was provided by a claim for a sum of Rs. 72,44,585.00 set up by the present petitioner. The claim was contested and the DF.SU on its own part set up a claim for Rs. 26,601.45 paisa. The learned Arbitrator by his Award dated September 23,1991 rejected the claim of the DESU and as regards the claim of the petitioner the same was held to be barred by res-judicata with the following remarks :