Union of India (Uoi) Vs. India Matals

Union of India (Uoi) vs India Matals

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Oct 01, 2004

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/706200

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/706200
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: R.C. Jain, J.
Decided On: Oct 01, 2004
Case Number: C.S. (OS) No. 733A of 1996 and I.A. No. 10319 of 1997
Subject: Arbitration

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- DIVORCE BY MUTUAL CONSENT PERSONAL PRESENCE OF PARTIES EXEMPTED POWER OF ATTORNEY TO DISSOLVE THE MARRIAGE The special power of attorney in favour of one Mr. Lal Babu Tiwari was executed by the petitioner (husband) to appear before the Court and testify about the contents of the petition. The petitioner has ...

Key legal issue: Arbitration
Acts & sections: Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 30 and 33

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Union of India (Uoi)

Advocate Ajay Sahni, Adv

Respondent

India Matals

Advocate Rajesh Banati, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 30 and 33
Reported In: 116(2005)DLT311; 2005(79)DRJ538

Excerpt

.....do not require any further evidence.[para 3] if both the parties, by way of affidavits or through counsel, state that they are married, and are able to produce proof of the marriage and that they have been living separately and have not been able to live together for the prescribed period, then there can be no reason as to why the court should not record its satisfaction as envisaged under section 13-b(2) of hindu marriage act, despite the fact that parties had not appeared in person and pass a decree for divorce.[para 6] where the parties are living far away from the jurisdiction of the court competent to dissolve the marriage, the parties after filing their affidavits can appoint attorneys to act on their behalf. attorney is competent to act on behalf of the principal on the basis of power of attorney executed by the principal. the courts have been allowing attorneys to file the petition, to withdraw the petition, to carry on proceedings in the court on behalf of their principal in all other cases. the attorney can also act in matrimonial cases as per instructions of their principle. the court can take necessary precautions to prevent frauds being perpetuated on it but unless the court smells some kind of fraud being played with it, the court should normally recognize the act of the attorneys. i therefore allow this petition. the order of the trial court insisting on the personal appearance of the parties is set aside.[para 8] - the arbitrator has wrongly unfastened the liability on the claimant objector by misconstruing and misreading the letter dated 24.8.1990; the arbitrator has wrongly rejected the claim of the objector on the ground that risk purchase was not proper and the same was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and, thereforee, the award is bad in law and on facts and cannot be sustained......the arbitrator has wrongly rejected the claim of the objector on the ground that risk purchase was not proper and the same was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and, thereforee, the award is bad in law and on facts and cannot be sustained.3. the respondent has opposed the application/objection and has filed a reply raising preliminary objections in regard to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that there is no error apparent on the face of the award on the basis of which the award can be set aside by this court. it is denied that there are any grounds much less sufficient grounds for setting aside the award of the sole arbitrator. various grounds taken up by the petitioner for setting aside the award are also denied. in the rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated its stand as taken up in the petition.4. i have heard mr. ajay sahai learned counsel for the plaintiff and mr. rajesh banati learned counsel representing the respondent and have given my thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions.5. in this case the parties have not led any evidence and have referred to and relied on the award, arbitral proceedings and the relevant documents which form the subject matter of the purchase order and the ensuing correspondence exchanged between the parties.6. the main contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner-objector is in regard to the correctness of the finding reached by the arbitrator in disallowing the claim of the petitioner on account of risk purchase of the material. learned counsel for the objector has referred to the conditions of the purchase order and the general conditions of the contract etc. in order to show that the petitioner had allegedly resorted to the risk purchase of the material after terminating the contract of the respondent strictly in accordance with law. all these contentions were pressed by the petitioner even before the learned arbitrator. the learned.....

Full Judgment

R.C. Jain, J.

1. These are the objections filed by the petitioner under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, against the Award of the Sole Arbitrator dated 25.2.1993. Vide a purchase order No. 211-S/634/TSO/India Metals dated 31.7.1987, the respondent undertook to supply 6.5 lacs numbers of sleeper screws for HM fastening to RDSO drawing No. T 3001/Alt. Nil and confirming to I.R.S Specification No. IRST-16 to the petitioner. The requisite supplies were not made for various reasons and it is alleged that the petitioner-Union of India terminated the Contract and has made Risk Purchase of Screws and on that account suffered loss of Rs. 11,71,025/- which the respondent was liable to reimburse to the petitioner in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and the Risk Purchase Order. Respondent denied its liability and thereforee, the dispute arose between the parties which were referred to the Sole Arbitration of Shri V. K. Kaul, Additional Divisional Railway Manager II Northern Railway, New Delhi, who entered into the reference and made and published his Award dated 25.2.1993 thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner to the above amount and directed the petitioner-Union of India to refund of amounts withheld on account of their alleged claim arising of the Risk Purchase of the material.

2. Award and arbitral proceedings having being filed in the Court by the Arbitrator, parties were noticed. Pursuant to the same the Union of India has filed an application/objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') challenging the Award of the Sole Arbitrator and praying for its setting aside inter alias on the grounds that the Arbitrator has wrongly held that there was alteration in the drawing in respect of which material was supplied by the respondent and the alteration in all was very minute and the respondent has agreed to supply the material as per new drawings as was clear from certain correspondence exchanged between the parties; the Arbitrator has wrongly unfastened the liability on the claimant objector by misconstruing and misreading the letter dated 24.8.1990; the Arbitrator has wrongly rejected the claim of the objector on the ground that Risk Purchase was not proper and the same was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract and, thereforee, the Award is bad in law and on facts and cannot be sustained.

3. The respondent has opposed the application/objection and has filed a reply raising preliminary objections in regard to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that there is no error apparent on the face of the Award on the basis of which the Award can be set aside by this Court. It is denied that there are any grounds much less sufficient grounds for setting aside the Award of the Sole Arbitrator. Various grounds taken up by the petitioner for setting aside the Award are also denied. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated its stand as taken up in the petition.

4. I have heard Mr. Ajay Sahai learned Counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. Rajesh Banati learned Counsel representing the respondent and have given my thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions.

5. In this case the parties have not led any evidence and have referred to and relied on the award, arbitral proceedings and the relevant documents which form the subject matter of the Purchase Order and the ensuing correspondence exchanged between the parties.

6. The main contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner-objector is in regard to the correctness of the finding reached by the Arbitrator in disallowing the claim of the petitioner on account of Risk Purchase of the material. Learned Counsel for the objector has referred to the conditions of the Purchase Order and the general conditions of the contract etc. in order to show that the petitioner had allegedly resorted to the Risk Purchase of the material after terminating the contract of the respondent strictly in accordance with law. All these contentions were pressed by the petitioner even before the learned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator has morefully considered the effect of those terms and conditions in the contract as also various aspects preceding the risk purchase of the material resorted to by the petitioner. The Arbitrator has given cogent reasons for arriving at the said finding.

7. The Arbitrator is the sole Judge of the matter referred to him and his decision has to be respected by the parties unless it shows that there is an error apparent on the face of the Award or the Arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings. Admittedly the petitioner has not made out any of these grounds to assail the Award of the Arbitrator. The entire objections of the petitioner are on the merits of the Award which this Court cannot scrutinise in the manner as an Appellate Court would do because this Court is not sitting as a Court of Appeal while dealing with these objections. Even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that a different view was possible on the face of the facts, circumstances and the material brought on record, still it will not be open to this Court to set aside the Award of the Arbitrator on that ground.

8. Having considered the matter in its entirety, this Court finds no merit whatsoever in the present objections of the Union of India. The objections are as such dismissed and the Award of the Arbitrator dated 25.2.1993, is hereby made a Rule of the Court. Let a decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2004 Same Parties Union of India (Uoi) vs India Matals Same Subject Arbitration Same Judge R.C. Jain, J. Acts & Sections Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 30 and 33

Arbitration