BAIJ NATH SACHDEVA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts relevant for the decision of this Arbitration case are that the Controller. Printing and Stationery Department, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla floated a tender in May 1987 for the supply of paper which was required to be submitted alongwith earnest money of Rs. 1,000. There were 34 items in all for which quotations were invited. The applicant Baij Nath Sachdeva (hereinabove to be called Plaintiff-objector) also gave quotations under the tender and the Controller, Printing and Stationery Department accepted the tender of the applicant in the name and style of M/s Sachdeva Paper Mart for five items vide his letter dated 14-9-1987. The Plaintiff-objector was also asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 65,400 as security money representing 10% of the contract value as per item No. 6(ii) of instruction to tenderers. He deposited the said amount vide FDR No. A-2 19892/206087 dated 25-9-1987. No supply order was placed on the applicant till 19-2-1988. Meanwhile, the Respondent-State of Himachal Pradesh floated a fresh tender on 13-11-1987 for 13 items including item Nos. 13 and 16 for which tender had already been accepted. The applicant alongwith other firms gave fresh quotations under the newly floated tender including items Nos. 13 and 16 of the earlier tender. However, the rates quoted by the various parties under the newly floated tender dated 13-11-1987 were much higher. The Respondent placed supply order dated 20-2-1988 which was personally handed over in Delhi by the Assistant Controller (Stationers) to the applicant-contractor firm on 22-2-1988 for Rs. 8,46,540. The term was also asked to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 19,300 as security money as 10% of the contract value was required to be deposited which amounted to Rs. 84,700 against which the firm already deposited Rs. 65,400 and this amount of Rs. 19,300 represented the difference. The case of the Plaintiff-objector is that he had already informed the Respondent-Defendant vide his letter dated 15-2-1988 that the firm's earlier rates quoted stood cancelled on 13-11-1987. The Plaintiff-objector vide letter dated 26-2-1988 reiterated this stand and also served notice under Section 80. Code of Civil Procedure on the Respondent-Defendant. The Respondent-Defendant vide his letter dated 7-3-1988 asked the Plaintiff-objector to execute the order and on the non-compliance of the order by the latter served show cause notice on 17-8-1988 on him, for forfeiting the security money and the earnest money for non-performance of the contract. Not being satisfied by the reply of the Plaintiff-contractor dated 24-8-1988, the Respondent-Defendant forfeited the security amount and earnest money amounting to Rs. 65,400 and Rs. 1,000 respectively vide order 15-9-1988.

(2.) Since the agreement between the parties arising out of the tender, contained an Arbitration Clause, the Plaintiff objector raised disputes as regards the same. The said disputes were referred for arbitration to Sh. Parminder Hira, Arbitrator (Commissioner-cum-Secretary Printing and Stationery to the Government of H.P.), Shimla. The said Arbitrator entered upon the reference and ultimately gave his award dated 21-11-1992.

(3.) The award was sent to the Court to be filed in the Court to make the award rule of the Court by the letter of the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (P and S) to the Government of H.P., Shimla vide a letter dated nil of the month of December 1994, alongwith the original award and the arbitration proceedings.