MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LTD Vs. SINGH CONSTRUCTION CO
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LTD.
SINGH CONSTRUCTION CO.
Click here to view full judgement.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. -
(1.) The respondent No. 1 has filed objections in respect of the Award
dated 03.09.1996 passed by the sole arbitrator. The Award is a non-speaking
Award. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 (Singh Construction Company)
firstly contended that this matter cannot be proceeded with because the
respondent No.2 died during the pendency of these proceedings. The learned
counsel for the claimant (Motor and General Finance Ltd.) immediately stated
that the Award made by the learned arbitrator in favour of the claimant was made
against the respondents coextensively and they were jointly and severely
liable. She also stated that the respondent No.2 was the guarantor and she does
not propose to proceed any further against the legal representatives / heirs of
the said respondent No.2. In these circumstances the first point raised by the
learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would be of no consequence.
(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 then raised the issue that
the counter claim filed on behalf of the said respondent was not at all
considered and this was ground enough for setting aside the Award and remanding
the matter for arbitration afresh after due consideration of the counter claim
of the respondent. He placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of K. V. George v. Secretary to Government, Water and Power Department,
Trivandrum and Anr. : (1989) 4 SCC 595. I have examined that decision and I
find that the same is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case.
Paragraph 12 of the said decision of the Supreme Court clearly indicates that in
that case the respondent had filed counter claims and the arbitrator without
considering the counter claims kept the counter claims for subsequent
consideration and made an Award only in respect of the claim. It was not
disputed that the arbitrator did not at all consider the counter claims and had
kept the same for consideration subsequently while making the Award in respect
of the claims filed by the appellant before the Supreme Court. In this context
the Supreme Court observed that undoubtedly the Award made by the arbitrator was
not sustainable in law and the arbitrator had mis-conducted himself and the
proceedings by making such an award. The Supreme Court also observed that it
was the duty of the arbitrator while considering the claims of the appellant to
have also considered the counter claims made on behalf of the respondents and
then to make the award after considering both the claims and counter claims.
Since this had not been done in that case, the Supreme Court found the Award to
be wholly illegal and unwarranted.
(3.) The situation that arises in the present case is entirely different.
Here, the counter claim has been clearly referred to by the arbitrator in its
Award and after setting out the claim and the counter claim of the respondent
and the documents on which the parties relied upon, the arbitrator passed a non-
speaking Award by noting:-
"Now, I have duly considered oral submissions made and documentary evidence
produced before me and matters referred to me and make my Award as under:-"
It cannot be said that the arbitrator did not consider the counter claim of the
respondent No.1. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court on which the
learned counsel for the respondent No.1 placed heavy reliance, would be of no
assistance to him.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.