GEEP INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) THROUGH DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SUPPLIES AND DISPOSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has filed the present appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short as „Act.) read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 challenging the judgment dated 7th April, 1995 of Additional District Judge, Delhi, vide which appellant's petition under Section 30 and 33 of the Act for setting aside the award dated 4th April, 1993, of the Sole Arbitrator was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of case are that, in response to an Invitation to Tender, appellant submitted its Rate Contract for the supply of Dry Batteries, which was accepted by the respondent. As per terms and conditions of Rate Contract, quarterly price escalation of rates was granted by respondent on the basis of average variance in M.M.T.C. declaration of monthly sale price of High Grade Electrolytic Zinc. It is alleged that prices for the quarters July to September, 1990 and October to December, 1990, were declared on 1st November, 1990 i.e. after a delay of more than two months and immediately after receipt of letter dated 1st November, 1990 from respondent, appellant moved an application to the excise department for approval of the price which was approved w.e.f. 7th November, 1990. Immediately thereafter, appellant made dispatches to different consignees. It is alleged that respondent arbitrarily and illegally levied a penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,33,152.50 and withheld the said amount from 98% bills raised by appellant.

(3.) NOTICE of filing of the award was issued to the parties and in response thereof, appellant filed objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Act, challenging the award of the sole Arbitrator, inter alia, on the ground that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself by exceeding his jurisdiction and acting contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract; the Arbitrator further misconducted himself by not acting according to law; by ignoring the fact that there has been no complaint from the consignees about the quality of the stores supplied by appellant; there was no consequential loss to the respondent and the stores supplied by the petitioners were duly consumed by the consignees.