LAWS(MPH)-2009-11-65

NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD Vs. VIMAL ENTERPRISES

Decided On November 03, 2009
NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD Appellant
V/S
VIMAL ENTERPRISES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall govern disposal of both the appeals, i.e. M.A.No. 267/2002 and M.A.No. 268/2002 as common question of law and facts are involved in both the appeals.

(2.) Both the appeals are preferred by the defendant-appellant National Fertilizers Limited challenging the order dated 23.8.2001 passed by the District Judge, Guna in Case No. 38/2000 (Misc. Civil), whereby the objections filed by the present appellant to an award passed by the Arbitrator are rejected and award is made rule of Court.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are, that the parties have entered into agreement which contained an arbitral clause. As there was no dispute about the terms of agreement the matter was referred to the Arbitrator in the year 1984. The Arbitrator passed an award on 8.8.1990. Against this award, the present appellant-National Fertilizer Limited preferred a Civil Revision No. 565/1994. This revision was allowed by this Court on 19.5.1995 and the matter was again remanded to the District Judge. The District Judge after hearing the parties, again referred the matter to the Arbitrator with a direction to pass a fresh award. The Arbitrator passed the award on 12.6.2000. This award was preferred by the respondent M/s. Vimal Enterprises before this Court for making it rule of Court on 28.5.2000. The present appellant preferred objections to the said award on 25.8.2000. The main objection raised by the present appellant was that the provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1996'] will apply to the arbitral proceedings and the award passed by the Arbitrator under the provisions of the Arbitrator Act, 1940 is without jurisdiction as the provision to the said Act will not apply after commencement of the Act, 1996 which came into force w.e.f. 16th August 1996. These objections were overruled by the Arbitrator by the impugned order. Hence, this appeal.