J K AGARWALA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these appeals, under Clause (6) of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, identical question of law is involved. The facts are also more or less similar. The parties are the same. Hence this common judgment.

(2.) BOTH these appeals are directed against the order of the Court below passing decrees in terms of two separate Awards made by two different arbitrators. The two appeals arise out of two different orders passed on the same date, viz., 7th August, 1973. M.A. No. 276 arises out of Miscellaneous Case No, 10 of 1969, whereas M.A. No. 277 arises out of Misc. Case No. 25 of 1969. BOTH the miscellaneous cases were initiated by proceedings under Section 14 (1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), and Awards of the two arbitrators were filed in the two cases in the Court below. The respondent Union of India, in both the cases, made a prayer in the Court below for passing decrees on the basis of the two Awards. The appellant, who is the same in both the appeals, filed objection resisting the claim of the respondent to have a decree passed in terms of the Awards.

(3.) AS I have already indicated earlier, the only question which has been raised in these two appeals by Shri AShwini Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the appellant, is that when the original contract was once repudiated or cancelled unilaterally by the respondent, in one case on 1-12-1965 and in the other on 2-12-1965, whether the cancellation of this revocation of contract by letter dated 7th February, 1966, did not revive the arbitration agreement contained in the original contract. It is worthwhile in passing to mention that before the arbitrators both the respondent as well as the appellant made claims and counter-claims arising out of the contract as they originally stood, and in the Award out of which M.A. 276 arises a sum of RP. 500/- was even awarded to the appellant out of his counter-claim of Rs. 40,3l9/-, and in the Award out of which M.A. 277 arises no sum was awarded to the appellant although he had put forth a counter-claim of Rupees 41,475/-. In the former Award a sum of Rs. 19,000/- has been awarded in favour of the respondent whereas in the Award in the latter case a sum of Rs. 19,223.93 P. has been awarded to the respondent. In the view that I have taken that the original contract as entered into between the parties remained intact by revocation of the cancellation order with only the time factor in the icontract being substituted, it cannot be said that the arbitration agreement became non est.