RAM CHANDER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) PETITIONER was awarded a contract for the supplyof cast iron spigot and socket soil waste and vent pipes by D.D.A. (herein-after called the respondent). The case of the petitioner is that the terms andconditions on which supplies were contracted were revised by writingincorporated in the agreement executed on 14/05/1981 between the parties.Certain disputes arose between the parties out of the execution of thecontract.

(3.) I have considered the relevant contentions of the parties andperused the award and the arbitration proceedings. The Arbitrator has takeninto consideration the letter dated 13.5.81 while awarding the amount tothe petitioner. The respondent DDA placed the letter dated 9.6.1982 on therecord of the Arbitration proceedings in support of their contention thatletter dated 13.3.81 stood deleted from the agreement. The letter dated9.6.82 was filed before the Arbitrator on 154 1985 with a convering letterstaling therein that the letter dated 13.5.81 which was initially forming paitof the agreement was deleted with the consent of the petitioner by letterdated 9.682. On 124.1985, the parties addressed arguments before theArbitrator In the minutes recorded on that date it is mentioned that it wasargued on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner had withdrawn theirletter dated 135 1981. On 2441985, another copy of letter dated 9.6.82was placed before the Arbitrator It is so mentioned in the proceedings ofthat date. The case of the petitioner before the Arbitrator in respect ofthis letter was that the DDA had no right to interpolate in the agreementwithout the consent of the petitioner. The letter dated 9.6.1982 regardingdeletion of letter dated 13.5.1981 was taken after one year by exerting unduepressure as payment of the material supplied was withheld. The petitioner hadno other alternative but to give such letters to the Chief Engineer who is nota competent authority. From the record it is quite clear that the respondentalleged before the Arbitrator that the letter dated 13.5 81 was subsequentlydeleted from the agreement by letter dated 9.6.82. The document was veryvital and material. The Arbitrator has not at all referred to or discussed theeffect of letter dated 96.1982. The document was material to arrive at thejust and fair decision to resolve the controversy between the parties. It washeld in K P. Poulose v. State of Kerala, AIR 1975 S.C. 1259 as under :