OM PRAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE seven First Appeals From Orders have been connected together as common questions of fact and law arise in all these cases. The appellant in all the cases, Shri Om Prakash, entered into certain contract with the military department during war period, in respect of which, there were disputes and according to an arbitration clause in the agreement the matter was to be referred to an arbitrator. In appeals Nos. 220, 221, 223 and 224 of 1952 the contracts provided for arbitration by the Director of Farms General Head Quarters, Simla, in appeals Nos. 222 of 1952 and 226 of 1962 the Officer-commanding Lucknow was to be the arbitrator and in appeal No. 225 of 1952 the contract provided that the arbitrator would be a certain Quarter Master at Delhi, The case of the appellant is that all these posts were abolished after the war and the officers mentioned in the respective agreements did not exist. Consequently, the appellant talked over the matter with the military officers and it was agreed that some new arbitrator had to be appointed. For this purpose the appellant filed seven applications in respect of the seven agreements under Section 8 of the Indian Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator. In each of these applications it was alleged that the relevant posts had been abolished, that it had been agreed that a fresh arbitrator be appointed and such an arbitrator could be out of one of the three names agreed to between the parties. The prayer ultimately in those applications was :

(2.) THE first question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that under Section 8 of the Indian Arbitration Act the parties could not appoint a man of their own choice and therefore the appointment of Col. Ranbir Singh as an arbitrator was itself invalid. That point, however, need not be decided in detail. It is enough to say that the appointment was made by the Court and it is not relevant whether the man appointed had been chosen by the parties or not. Moreover Col. Ranbir Singh having returned the papers there is no use going into the question whether his appointment was valid.

(3.) THE third point contended for by the counsel for the appellant is that Brig. Bhandari was never appointed as an arbitrator and he had no jurisdiction to take up the matter. As stated above, the Court had not appointed any person by name but had appointed D.O.F.G.H.Q. Simla. Whether Brig. Bhandari was the officer having that designation is a question of fact and whether he had the authority to act as such will depend upon the finding whether he was an officer of that designation. Brig. Bhandari has been produced as D. W. 4, He has stated that he was holding the post of the Director of Farms (D.O.F.) General Head Quarters Simla at the time when he received the papers. But in cross-examination he stated that at the time of agreement there were two independent corps, one called the Veterinary and Remount and the other Military Farms Department. Each one had a Director of its own. After the war both these corps were amalgamated and the new corps is now known as Remount Veterinary and Farms and he is the Director. This statement shows that Brig. Bhandari was the Director of the new corps that came into existence in 1947-48 and the old corps of the Military Farms was completely abolished. Since the corps itself whose Director was called the D.O.F. was abolished, it is difficult to say that the Director of the new amalgamated corps who may now be called the Director of Remount and Veterinary Farms is the same officer who was called the Director of Farms. If the position had been that the two corps had remained in existence and the same person had been appointed Director of both the corps it was possible to hold that Brig. Bhandari was the Director of Farms and was also at the same time Director of the Veterinary and Remount. But the corps themselves having been abolished, we are of opinion that there remained no officer who could be called the Director of Military Farms. THEre is therefore force in this objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. THE contention of the respondent which was acceptable to the Court below, that mere amalgamation of the two posts in the same officer does not mean that the post of the Director of Military Farms has been abolished, is not correct. Since the Court appointed the Director of Farms as the arbitrator at the time when there was no Director of Farms, Brig. Bhandari had no jurisdiction to take up the matter and assume duties of an arbitrator.