UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAM SUKH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question which arises for decision in the present case is whether a revision is competent from an opinion given by a Court in exercise of its consultative jurisdiction under Section 13(b) of the Indian Arbitration Act.

(2.) THE facts of the case are very simple indeed. Messrs. Ram Sukh Dass and Brothers who are military contractors of Solon entered into an agreement with the Government of India for the supply of firewood to the military authorities in Delhi for the period 1-4-1948 to 31-3-1949. Disputes arose in regard to the rate at which the contractors should be paid and the matters in controversy between the parties were referred to an arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of an arbitration clause. During the course of proceedings the arbitrator stated the following question of law in the form of a special case for the opinion of a Subordinate Judge at Delhi under the provisions of Section 13 (b) of the Arbitration Act, namely: "Whether in the revision of rates for the supply of firewood the rates of the place of supply and not the place of procurement will govern the contract?" When this matter came up for consideration before Mr. Dhamija, a Subordinate Judge of Delhi, the latter expressed the view that the payment should be made in accordance with the rates which were prevalent at the place of supply. THE contractors were dissatisfied with this order and presented a petition to this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This petition was allowed and the order of the trial Court was set aside on the ground that the order in question was recorded by the trial Court. Without affording the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard. THE question which was propounded by the arbitrator wag later dealt with by Mr. Pritam Singh, Commercial Sub Judge at Delhi. He has now recorded an opinion which is not favourable to Government. Government are dissatisfied with this opinion and have come to this Court in revision.

(3.) AFTER I had recorded the above order I started wondering whether the above decision was correct, for although an advisory opinion rendered under the provisions of Section 13(b) of the Arbitration Act may not fall within the ambit of the expression "judgment" appearing in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, it may stilt fail within the ambit of the expression "case decided" appearing in Section 115' of the Code of Civil Procedure. J accordingly heard the parties over again with the object of resolving the doubt which had arisen in my mind.