M/S RAJINDER PAL AND BROTHERS CHHAJLI, SUNAM Vs. PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 8.10.2004 vide which the applicants were prohibited from examining officials from the State Bank of Patiala, Sunam and Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sunam so as to prove the specimen signatures of the applicants. The application was filed in proceedings pending before the learned District Judge, Sangrur under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was earlier Proprietor of M/s Rajinder Pal and Brothers Chhajli, Sunam, District Sapgrur. The said concern was closed in the year 1995-96. It is the allegation of the respondents that the said firm had submitted its tender for sale of wheat during the season 1996-97. The tenders were opened and after negotiations between the respondents and the alleged representatives of the firm, the acceptance was conveyed by the respondents vide telegram dated 16.1.1997 for 447 metric tons of commercial wheat lying at Abohar Center of Marked and 490 metric tons of commercial wheat lying at Fazilka Center of Markfed. The firm was called upon to deposit 10% security of the total cost. Since the firm did not deposit the security the alleged quantity of wheat was sold at the risk and cost of the firm. Therefore as per clause 20 of the terms and conditions of the tender, the matter regarding recovery of loss suffered by the respondents was referred for arbitration. Shri K.S. Goraya, Senior Manager, Marketed, Chandigarh was appointed as sole Arbitrator for recovery of the amount of loss suffered by the respondents plus interest. Before the Arbitrator, the petitioner was proceeded against ex pane and the award was made on 18.12.2000.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that it is only when he was served in the execution application that he came to know about the passing of the award. He immediately approached the respondents for getting a copy of the award and thereafter filed the present application under Sec. 34 of the Act challenging the award before the District Judge, Sangrur. It is primarily the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner-firm had discontinued its business in 1995-96. The petitioner firm never submitted any tender and never deposited any earnest money. No tender form was signed and neither did the firm appeared in the negotiations. The petitioner submitted that someone else had tried to misuse the name of the petitioner-firm while submitting the tender and doing negotiations. This was the stand taken in the application under Sec. 34 of the Act as well. In order to prove that the petitioner had neither deposited any money nor signed the tender form the petitioner had filed the application on 29.8.2004 for issuance of dasti summons to officials of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sunam and State Bank of Patiala, Sunam along with the concerned record so that it can be proved that the petitioner had never signed any tender form.