UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, PANCHKULA AND ANOTHER Vs. CONTIMETERS ELECTRICAL PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 07.09.2018 rendered by learned Additional District Judge cum- Presiding Judge, Special Commercial Court at Gurugram, and also the Award dated 15.11.2010, rendered by learned Arbitrator-cum-Chairman (Retd.) - HPU.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that the appellants floated tenders vide NIT No. 6 dated 29.08.2000 for supply of single/three phase electronics meters with MCBs against their annual estimated requirement of five lacs single phase meters and 90000 three phase meters for the year 2001-02. Twenty five firms participated in the tender process. The rates were finalised. The rate contracts were made with seven firms, including respondent No.1 firm, for supply of single phase/three phase electronic meters. The Engineer-in-Chief of the appellants had placed seven orders with respondent No.1 firm for supply of single/three phase electronic meters. The rate contract was valid till 31.03.2002. According to the appellants, respondent No.1 was paid the amount in excess. The appellants decided to encash the bank guarantee. Respondent No.1 instituted a civil suit. The court restrained the appellants from encashing the bank guarantee. Respondent No.1 also issued notice for appointment of Arbitrator in respect of two purchase orders DH64 dated 31.10.2001 and HH5316 dated 15.11.2001, vide letter dated 31.10.2002. The fact of the matter is that after the protracted litigation, the Chief Manager/MM UHBVN was appointed as the sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator made an ex-parte Award in respect of two purchase orders DH64 dated 31.10.2001 and HH5316 dated 15.11.2001. Respondent No.1 filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act' for the sake of brevity), challenging the ex-parte Award along with an application for condonation of delay. The delay was not condoned. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Panchkula, vide order dated 06.09.2007. Respondent No.1 filed a writ petition, wherein respondent No.1 was permitted to file petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act along with condonation of delay application. The learned District Judge, Panchkula, allowed the petition and set aside the ex-parte Award. Respondent No.1 filed an application on 12.09.2009 for appointment of Arbitrator. The Chairman vide his noting dated 25.09.2009 ordered that he himself would adjudicate the matter qua the disputes of two purchase orders DH64 dated 31.10.2001 and HH5316 dated 15.11.2001. The notices were issued to both the parties for adjudication of their disputes. Respondent No.1 sent a communication dated 06.07.2009 to the Chairman requesting him to adjudicate disputes in respect of other five purchase orders also. The Chairman suo motu decided to adjudicate disputes in respect of other five purchaser orders also. A preliminary issue regarding limitation was framed. The Arbitrator held that all the claims, including other purchase orders, were within limitation. The term of the Chairman expired on 31.03.2010. Thereafter, the Chairman, Haryana Power Utility, Panchkula, appointed Shri T.K. Dhingra, Director, UHBVN, Panchkula, as Arbitrator. He made the Award on 15.11.2010.

(3.) The appellants challenged the Award dated 15.11.2010 by filing objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the learned Additional District Judge -cum- Presiding Judge, Special Commercial Court at Gurugram. The petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 07.09.2018. Hence, this appeal.