SASIDARAN Vs. INDIA CEMENTS CAPITAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Original Petitions are filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, "the Act") challenging the award of the Arbitration dated 26.11.2008. While the Third Respondent before the Arbitrator ahs filed O.P NO.426 of 2006, Respondents 1 and 2 have filed O.P. No.121 of 2010.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Arbitrator.

(3.) ON the other hand, it is the contention of Mr. K. Rajasekaran, learned Counsel for the claimant that the Arbitrator has analyzed the entire issue and on fact has given a decision and under Section 34 of the Act, there cannot be reappraisal of the evidence by this Court. 5.2. It is his submission that there was no new contract entered at all and there was no novation. The preparatory talk entered cannot be stated to be a concluded contract and it is stated that the vehicle has never been transferred to the said Ahmed Koya. To substantiate his contention, he would rely upon the judgment in Lata Construction and others v. Dr Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and another, 2000 (1) SCC 586. 5.3. He would also rely upon the judgment in United Bank of India v. Ramadas Mahadeo Prashad and others, CDJ 2004 SC 036, to substantiate that a Memorandum of Understanding cannot be equated to a contract. 5.4. He would also rely upon a judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court reported in k. Appukuttan Panicker and another v. S.K.R.A.K.R . Athappa Chettiar and others, AIR 1966 Ker. 303, to state that for the purpose of novation there must be an agreement between the parties.