ANIL JAIN Vs. MADHUNAM APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant through the present appeal has taken exception to the judgment and order dated August 19, 1996 passed by the Additional District Judge whereby the learned lower Court allowed the application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act and made the award dated 3rd May, 1988 passed by Shri L.M.Asthana, Arbitrator a rule of the Court.

(2.) Facts in brief which led to the presentation of the present appeal are as under: that the respondent herein moved an application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act for making the award alluded to above a rule of the Court and to pass a decree in terms thereof on the ground that the respondent are a company with limited liability having their registered office at 82/2 (33) Chandni Chowk, Delhi Shri Vikas Chander is the Director in-charge of the respondent. He is the principal officer of the said company and is therefore, competent to sign and verify the petition. The appellant and the respondent No. 1 herein entered into an agreement dated September 19, 1993 whereunder Shri L.M.Asthana, vocate, respondent No. 2, was chosen as an arbitrator to settle the disputes and differences in between the parties. Later on the disputes and differences arose in between the parties. Consequently the same were referred as per the aforementioned agreement to respondent No. 2 for decision. The respondent No. 2 made and published his award on April 28, 1984. However the same was set aside by Shri G.S.Dhaka, Additional District Judge vide his judgment and order dated January 17, 1987 and remanded the case to the learned arbitrator for a decision afresh. The learned arbitrator entered the reference after giving a number of opportunities to the appellant to put forward their case, yet the appellant failed to avail, the said opportunities. The learned arbitrator consequently was left with no alternative but to proceed ex parte which he did and made and published his award on May 3, 1988. The intimation with regard to the award having been made and published was received by the respondent on May 21, 1988.

(3.) It was in the above circumstances that the respondent No. 1 moved an application before the learned District Judge for making the award a rule of the Court and to pass a decree in terms thereof against the appellant. the appellant herein objected to the said award through his objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act and prayed for setting aside the same, inter alia, on the following grounds: that no notice of the arbitration proceedings was ever sent and served on the appellant. Consequently the impugned award is liable to be set aside on this short ground alone. The impugned award made and published after the expiry of the statutory period inasmuch as the arbitrator was appointed vide judgment and order dated January 17, 1987 whereas the award in question was made and published on May 3, 1988. The respondent No. 2 i.e. the arbitrator has been the counsel of the respondent. He has been conducting their cases. Hence he is their man. The learned lower Court after the appraisal of the evidence which was led by the parties came to the conclusion that the respondent were entitled to succeed. Hence he rejected the objections and made the impugned award a rule of the Court and passed a decree in terms thereof. Aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the said judgment and decree the appellant has approached this Court.