NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATION MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD Vs. WOMEN DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this application under Section 9 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act") with a prayer that respondent be restrained from selling, disposing of and creating any third party rights in any manner as far as balance goods/ salvage lying in its godown No. 5, Khasra No. 39/9, Jai Hind Gram, Tekri Kalan, New Delhi-41 and the respondent be also restrained from transferring, alienating its rights, title and interest in property No. 313, DDA, MS Tower -1, Mount Kailash, East of kailash, New Delhi-110015 and Khasra No. 23/14 and 23/17, Village and Post office Rani Khera, Madanpur Dabas, Delhi-81.

(2.) THE petitioner had entered into an agreement with the respondent on 20th May 2004. This agreement contained an arbitration clause for reference of a dispute between the parties to an Arbitrator. The agreement, as entered into between the parties provided that though all products were to be purchased by WDO in its own name, but on behalf of Nafed and Nafed was to release funds in respect of these purchases made by WDO on showing proof of purchases. Nafed also advanced funds to WDO (respondent) to meet all other incidental expenses relating to transactions of supply to the indentors. Thus, the goods were being purchased by the respondent in its own name but all financing was being done by the petitioner on showing the proof of purchase and indentors and the goods so purchased were being supplied on behalf of petitioner to APO. Nafed was to be paid service charges on gross value of the transaction made on behalf of Nafed by WDO at the rate of 1. 5% for business turnover of one thousand lac annually and one percent for business turnover exceeding one thousand lac annually.

(3.) ON perusal of documents, it is apparent that the respondent was maintaining stock and was informing the petitioner from time to time about the stock maintained by it and was sending intends of the stock. The stock was being kept in the godown of the respondent. Clause 2. 6 provides that respondent was responsible to make good the entire investment made by petitioner in the purchase made in the indentors. This contract was going on when the respondent informed the petitioner on 1st January 2008 through fax message that their godown being Godown No. 5, Khasra N. 39/9, Jai Hind gram, Tekri Kalan, New Delhi-41 where the goods were stored had caught fire in the early morning of 1st January 2008 and respondent requested the petitioner to take necessary action as required. Pleadings further reveal that the godown was duly insured with the Insurance Company by respondent. Respondent lodged claim with the insurance company for claiming damages due to fire. The insurance claim was received by the respondent.