BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED Vs. CHAKRABORTY AND MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court : This is an application, inter alia, for condonation of delay in making the present application and for setting aside the award dated August 30, 1991 made by Sri Prabir Roychowdhury, Sole Arbitrator, on the grounds stated in the petition filed on behalf of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., the petitioner herein. So far as the question of condonation of the delay in making the present application is concerned, it appears that though the notice under section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act was directed to the petitioner Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., yet the same was served on Coal India Ltd. on December 13, 1991. THE case of the petitioner is that the service of the said notice was not legal, inasmuch as Coal India Ltd. and Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. are different legal entities and the petitioner did not come to know about the service of the notice until December 23, 1991. THE instant application was made on January 21, 1992 and in the premises, I am of the view that there are good and sufficient grounds for condonation of delay in making the present application. I, therefore, condone the delay in making the present application for setting aside the award.

(2.) THE present petitioner filed an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act before this Court. On the said application, originally Sm. Tapati Sengupta was appointed Sole Arbitrator. THE said Sm. Tapati Sengupta held 17 (seventeen) sittings and thereafter she declined to proceed further with the arbitration. This Court thereafter appointed Mr. Prabir Roychowdhury as the Sole Arbitrator in place and stead of Sm. Tapati Sengupta. Mr. Prabir Roychowdhury (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitrator) held several sittings. THE case of the petitioner is that no oral evidence was adduced either by the petitioner or by the respondent before the Arbitrator. According to the petitioner, arguments were made by the respective counsels on the basis of documentary evidence only. After the hearing of the arbitration was concluded, the Arbitrator made and published his award dated 30.8.91.

(3.) MR. Samar Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that no oral evidence was at all adduced by any of the parties and there was no question of the Arbitrator considering any oral evidence. According to the learned counsel, the Arbitrator has considered some material which was not on record, viz., the oral evidence alleged to be adduced on behalf of the parties. According to MR. Banerjee, the Arbitrator has either considered extraneous materials or it is a case of total non-application of mind by the Arbitrator, inasmuch as he has stated in his award that he considered oral evidence whereas there was no such oral evidence adduced before the Arbitrator, nor did any of the parties adduce any oral evidence. According to MR. Banerjee, the award is vitiated for non-application of mind and/or is otherwise invalid.