ALKA INDUSTRIES PAINTS PVT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the invitation to tender, the petitioner submitted its tender for supply of 20,840 kgs. of Paste Oil to the respondent Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. The tender of the petitioner was accepted and a purchase order was placed by the respondent on the petitioner for the supply of the aforesaid quantity of the Paste Oil. The petitioner offered the goods to the respondent but on inspection they were found to be below specifications. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the rejection the petitioner offered goods according to the contracted specifications, but the respondent failed to inspect the goods. The stand of the Union of India, on the other hand, is that the goods offered by the petitioner were not according to the specifications, and therefore, the same were rejected by the Railway India Technical and Economic Services Ltd. (RITES). The further case of the respondent is that since the petitioner failed to supply the goods, the saame had to be purchased from another contractor at the risk and cost of the petitioner. In view of the disputes between the parties the General Manager, Northern Railway, appointed Shri S.C. Mittal as the Arbitrator for adjudicating and determination of the matters in controversy. The Arbitrator rendered his award on July 16,1993. The respondent not being satisfied with the award has challenged the same.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the award was made and published by the Arbitrator on July 16,1993 but the petitioner did not file application under Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 within thirty days from the date of service of the notice of the making of the award. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, the petition under Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act is barred under Article 119-A of the Limitation Act. I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent. It is not disputed that there is nothing on record to show as to when the petitioner was served with a notice of the making and publishing of the award by the petitioner. Since the period of 30 days has to be reckoned from the date of the service of the notice and since there is nothing to show as to when the petitioner was served, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent has to be rejected. It may also be pointed out that the Arbitrator can suo moto file the award and his power to do so in not hindered by any provisions of the Limitation Act.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that under Standard Conditions of Contract, particularly Clause 1502, the consignee has the right to reject the delivery of stores made by the contractor. Learned Counsel invited my attention to the report of the RITES dated August 30,1989 to show that the goods offered by the petitioner were not according to the specifications of the respondent. Learned Counsel also urged that the Arbitrator has ignored the fact that in view of the rejection of the goods by the RITES the respondent was within its rights to purchase the goods from another contractor at the risk and costs of the petitioner. In a nut shell, the submission of the learned Counsel is that the Arbitrator travelled outside the contract in rejecting the claim of the respondent on account of the risk purchase of the goods made by it. I am afraid, the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent has no force. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that after the goods offered by the petitioner were rejected on August 30, 1989, the petitioner on October 4,1989 wrote to the respondent stating that the goods had been rectified and the same could be inspected by the representatives of the respondent. Learned Counsel also invited my attention to the letter dated November 2, 1989 of the petitioner reminding the respondent that the goods have not been inspected by the RITES. My attention has also been invited to the various communications sent by the Arbitrator to the Additional General Manager, RITES, requesting him to ensure presence of the concerned Inspecting Engineer alongwith full details of the case. It is not disputed by the respondent that the petitioner had written letters dated October 4,1989 and November 2,1989 for inspection of the material. The respondent has also not disputed the fact that the Arbitrator had made endeavour to find out the position from the RITES regarding the inspection of the goods which were offered by the petitioner subsequent to the rejection of the goods on August 30, 1989.