STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. T D VANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec.39 of the Arbitration Act arises from a judgment and decree dated 31-8-1989 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court No.11, Ahmedabad, in Civil Misc. Application No.625 of 1988 whereby the application filed by the Arbitrator-the present respondent No.1 under Sec.14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act was allowed.

(2.) The facts in brief are that in pursuance of invitation to tender for supply of 700 metric tons of white writing papers by the present appellant-State through the Industries Commissioner and Central Purchase Officer, the tender submitted by the present opponent No.2 was accepted. However, since a dispute arose between the parties about quality of papers, withholding of payments, etc. the matter was referred to Sole Arbitrator, Mr.T.D.Vania, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Legal Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, as per clause No.22 of the tender agreement. Upon affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, the learned Sole Arbitrator published his award vide award on 16-6-1988. Thereafter, the learned Arbitrator filed Civil Misc. Application No.625 of 1988 in the City Civil Court under Sec.14(2) of the Act along with the original award and records and proceedings and it is also an application under Sec.17 of the Act authorizing the Court to make the award rule of the Court, if nothing is found objectionable as stipulated under Secs.15 and 16 of the Act. However, the State of Gujarat raised objections by filing Civil Misc. Application No.830 of 1988. Both these applications were heard together by the learned City Civil Judge, Court No.11, Ahmedabad, and the learned Judge vide impugned judgment and decree dismissed Civil Misc. Application No.830 of 1988 filed by the State and allowed Civil Misc. Application No.625 of 1988 filed by the learned Arbitrator and made the award rule of the Court, giving rise to the present appeal by the State challenging the judgment dated 31-8-1989 rendered in Civil Misc. Appln.No.625 of 1988.

(3.) Heard learned AGP, Mr.N.J.Shah for the appellant-State and learned counsel, Mr.A.C.Gandhi, for the respondent No.2, the main contesting party.