LACHMAN D CHABLANI Vs. UNION OFINDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal Is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge Lucknow. dis missing the objection of the appellant to the award made by the sole arbitrator in a dispute between Sri Lachman D. Chablani and the Union of India. That dispute had arisen between the said par ties out of a contract for handling and transport of food grains at Central Stor age Depot. Lucknow for the period from 21st July. 1957 to 20th July. 1958.

(2.) The present appellant filed an application under Sec. 8 of the Indian Arbitration Act in the court of the Civil Judge. Lucknow for appointment of an arbitrator to decide the dispute and give his award. By an order dtd. 22/4/1964 the learned Civil Judge. Lucknow appointed Sri V. Ramaswami Iyer as sole arbitrator in the case and directed the parties to appear before him on 25th April. 1964. The arbitrator was also di rected to file the award within two months. On 25th April. 1964 the present appellant appeared before the arbitrator and asked for time to file his claim. He was allowed to do so by 11th May. 1964 but having failed to do so he asked for further time which was allowed. Ulti mately he filed his claim before the arbitrator on 19/5/1964. The Union of India filed reply to that claim and also filed a counter claim. The appellant was thereupon given time till 28th Sep tember, 1964 to file his reply. He how ever, did not do so and moved the court for removal of the arbitrator on the ground that he had not given his award within two months. He also re quested the arbitrator to stay further proceedings meanwhile. The proceedings were accordingly stayed by the arbitra tor. The proceedings were also stayed by an order of the court. The application of the appellant was however, rejected by the court on 18th September. 1965 and the arbitrator was directed to sub mit his award by 1st December. 1965. The proceedings were then re-started by the arbitrator. On 21/9/1965 the arbitrator directed the present appellant to file a reply within a fort night and the parties were asked to complete admissions and denials of each other's documents as well as to file draft issues on or before 7/10/1965. From the order sheet dtd. 7/10/1965 maintained by the arbitrator it appears that the arbitrator had received a telegria from the present appellant Intimating that the appellant was holi daying and requesting to fix a date somewhere in the middle of Nov- The arbitrator noted that no reply had been filed by the present ap pellant against the counter claim filed by the Union of India and that the parties had not completed admissions and denials of each other's documents and had not filed draft issues. They were, therefore, once again directed to admit or deny each other's documents within a week. The arbitrator also framed the points for determination in the case. He re jected the request of the present appel lant for a long adjournment of the case. The case was. however, adjourned by, the arbitrator for evidence of the par ties to 21/10/1965. The parties were also notified and warned that in case of uneasiness or absence of any of them on the said date of hearing the case would be proceeded ex parte and disposed of In accordance with law. A copy of this order sheet was sent to the present appellant and to the counsel for the Union of India. In compliance with the order of the arbitrator the Union of India filed on 19/10/1965 admis sions and denials of those documents which had been filed by the present appellant. The appellant, however, sent a letter dtd. 20/10/1965 to the arbitrator acknowledging the receipt of the arbitrator's letter of 11/10/1965 and intimating that he would file a revision application before the High Court against the order of the Civil Judge of 18th September. 1965 whereby his application for removal of the arbi trator had been rejected. He requested the arbitrator to fix 31/10/1965 for attendance of the parties so that he might have a chance to obtain stay order by 30/10/1965. The arbitrator, however, took up the case on 21st Octo ber. 1965. The Union of India was re presented by a counsel. The claimant was. however, absent and none appeared for him. It appears from the order sheet of 21/10/1965 maintained by the arbitrator that the arbitrator had receiv ed a telegram on that date from the claimant intimating that he was filing a revision before the High Court and re questing for postponement of the pro ceedings and for fixing 31/10/1965. Finding that no sufficient ground for adjournment had been made out the arbitrator rejected the prayer for postponement of the proceedings and proceeded to record the evidence adduc ed on behalf of the Union of India. Since the claimant was absent the arbitrator proceeded ex parte against him. On be half of the Union of India two witnesses were examined and the case was ad journed for making the award. Ulti mately the arbitrator made his award on 22/10/1965 By that award the claim of the present appellant was dismissed. The counter claim filed by the Union of India was allowed against the present appellant to the extent of Ks. 8, 178/39. This award was filed In the court and the Union of India prayed that the same may be made a rule of the court The present appellant filed an objection praying that the award be set aside on the grounds that the arbitrator had miscomputed himself and the pro ceedings inasmuch as he did not ad journ the case on 21st October. 1965 on receipt of the telegram and did not give sufficient reasonable time to the appellant to appear before him and pro duce evidence in support of his claim and that no award should have been made in favour of the Union of India for Rs.8, 178.0039 as no claim had been filed by the Union of India In that be half and that the arbitrator being a ser vant of the Union of India was not a fit person to arbitrate. All these allegations were refuted by the Union of India in its reply. The learned court below, hav ing found that the arbitrator had not misconducted himself and the proceed ings dismissed the objections of the pre sent appellant and pronounced the judg ment in accordance with the award which was made a part of the decree.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the arbitrator had misconducted himself and the proceed ings in two ways, namely (1) the arbi trator should have adjourned the case on 21/10/1965 and should not have proceeded ex parte against the ap pellant and (2) the arbitrator, while making the award, did not consider the appellant's documents which had been admitted by the respondent. Union of India and erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant. We shall examine these two grounds in seriatim.