PANCHANAN DEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arising out of an application under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act raises a question to which the Act furnishes no answer. The learned trial Judge, Sarkar J., thought that the matter was concluded by a decision of the Supreme Court, but I do not think that it is.

(2.) THE facts are as follows: THE appellant, Panchanan Dey, entered into several contracts with the respondent, Union of India, for the supply of steel-made stores of various kinds. THE contracts apparently contained an arbitration agreement, although it has not been printed in the paper book, that in the event of disputes and differences arising over the performance of the contracts, the same would be referred to the arbitration of two arbitrators one to be nominated by each party, and that if the arbitrators failed to agree, the matter would be referred to the decision of an umpire. Disputes did arise about several of the contracts and they were referred to the arbitration of one Sri Niranjan Chatterjee, a pleader, nominated by the appellant and one Sarkar Bukshi Siv Charan Singh nominated by the Union of India. For the purposes of the reference, the relevant contracts were divided into two groups and a consolidated reference with respect to each group was made, so that there were two references, each covering a number of contracts. THE arbitrators failed to agree and thereupon the disputes were referred to the arbitration of the late Mr. A.N. Sen, a retired Judge of this Court, as umpire. He made his awards on the 9th of March, 1954, and sent notice of his having made them to the parties. THE appellant received the notice addressed to him on 15-3-1954 and the respondent on the 10th. THE umpire held his proceedings at Delhi.

(3.) THEREAFTER, by a letter dated the 20th of May, 1954, a solicitor, acting for the appellant, made a request to the umpire to file the first award for Rs. 55,412-8-0 in this Court as it had become necessary to obtain a judgment on it. On the next day, the same solicitor addressed a letter to the Union of India in which he stated that he understood from his client that the umpire had sent the original award to the Union for filing the same in the High Court at Calcutta and that they should file it immediately so that this Court might be asked to pronounce a judgment on the award. The two letters were hardly consistent, because, according to the first, the award was with the umpire and he was not filing it, while, according to the second, the umpire had sent the award to the Union of India for filing it in this Court and it was the Union of India who were withholding it.