MODERN FOOD INDUSTRIES Vs. PAPER MATE PRIVATE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the disputes between the parties, matter was referred to the arbitration. The learned arbitrator had given his award dated 20. 2. 1991. The respondent herein had filed objections to the said award, which were registered as IA No. 721/1993. These objections came up for hearing on 11. 1. 2007. Counsel for both the parties had appeared in the pre-lunch session. However, the petitioner's counsel requested that the matter be taken in the after-lunch session on the plea that the Senior Counsel who had to argue the matter was not available. His request was accepted. When the matter was called up in the afternoon at 2. 26 p. m. , nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. In these circumstances, on the basis of submissions made by learned counsel for the objector, order was passed in the Court on the said application/objections of the respondent. There were three objections to the award which are taken note of in the order dated 11. 1. 2007. One of these objections was that the award in question is a non-speaking award. This objection was accepted taking note of the fact that though clause 22 of the agreement mandated the arbitrator to give his reasons, the learned arbitrator had passed a non-speaking award. Without going into the other two objections, the award was set aside and order was passed remitting back the matter to the arbitrator for passing a speaking award after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard.

(2.) THE present application is filed seeking review of the said order dated 11. 1. 2007. It is stated in the application that counsel for the petitioner could not appear for some reason on 11. 1. 2007 and, therefore, could not assist the Court. It is further stated that the award in question is a reasoned award and, therefore, order dated 11. 1. 2007 contains errors apparent on the face of the record. This review petition is contested by the respondents by filing reply. The maintainability of the review petition is objected on the ground that there is no resolution of the Board of Directors to file the said review petition; the petition is not presented properly by any authorized person as the advocate who has presented the petition is not appointed by the petitioner as its Advocate, inasmuch as, he is appointed as an Advocate by Mr. Atam Parkash, and not by the company, who had no authority from the company; and there is no error on the face of the record and no injustice has been done in passing the impugned order.

(3.) INSOFAR as objections to the maintainability of the review petition are concerned, I hardly find any justification to the same. The petition/suit was filed by the petitioner for making the award Rule of the Court. In case the impugned order has gone against the petitioner and it is decided to file review application, I do not think that any further or special resolution is necessary in this behalf once there is already an authorization for filing and prosecuting the petition for making the award Rule of the Court.