O. P. Garg, J. - (1.) The Union of India through the Department of Supply. Directorate of Supplies, Disposals placed two orders dated 24th April and 23rd August, 1990 with M/s. Sukhdev Steel Cutters and Welders, 83/23B (43) Building Material Market, Juhi Khurd, Kanpur-respondent No. 2 in the writ petition (for short called "the supplier') respectively for the supply of 273 and 31 Iron Safes Fire Resistant Special Iron Safe Record Room. The agreement executed between the parties is said to contain an arbitration clause. After the supplies were made, the Union of India is alleged to have paid the entire amount to the manufacturer except a sum of Rs. 79,257 withheld for rectification of defects. There arose a dispute with regard to the payment. The supplier filed a suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act') which was registered as Original Suit No. 42 of 1996 for resolution of the dispute by arbitration. The suit was decreed and Sri Pradeep Kutnar Srivastava. an Advocate was appointed as arbitrator by order dated 17.12.1996. He made an award on 27.2.1999. a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The claim of the supplier for compensation/damages to the extent of Rupees Twelve lacs Fifty Thousands with Interest at 18 per cent per annum was allowed. The award was filed in a sealed over under Section 14 of the Act before trial court, i.e.. Additional Civil Judge/IVth A.C.M.M.. Kanpur Nagar where upon a notice was issued under Section 14 (2) of the Act on 8.4.1999 and was served on the Union of India at its Calcutta office on 12.4.1999. No objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act was filed on behalf of the Union of India within the specified period of 30 days of the service of notice of the making of the award. After receiving a certified copy of the award on 6.9.1999. the Union of India filed objection against it along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 27.10.1999. The application for condonation of delay and the objection were rejected by trial Court by order dated 19.2.2000 (Misc. Case No. 6/74-Annexure-8 to the petition). It is In these circumstances that the Union of India approached this court by filing Civil Misc. Writ No. 20956 of 2000 in which the following interim order was passed by this Court at the initial stage : ".....In the meantime, operation of the award shall remain stayed provided the petitioners deposit the entire amount under the award after calculating the amount of interest upto the period 21st March, 2000. This amount shall, be deposited by the Union of India by 30.6.2000 positively with respondent No. 1. In case the petitioners fail to deposit the amount aforesaid, this interim order shall stand automatically discharged and the respondent No. I shall be entitled to proceed with the case and pass appropriate order." Pursuant to the said order. Union of India has deposited a total sum of Rs. 15,97.908 before the trial court. There have been certain objections with-regard to the deposits and the supplier maintained that since the aforesaid order passed by this Court in the writ petition has not been complied with, further proceedings for making the award 'rule of the court' under Section 17 of the Act be taken. The trial court rejected the application of the supplier on 29.7.2000. This order has given rise to the revision No. 37) of 2000 filed by the supplier.
(2.) Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have, been filed both in the writ petition as well as in the revision application. The revision petition came up for admission before Hon'ble V.M. Satiai. J. who by his order dated 20.9.2000 observed that the revision and the writ petition, aforesaid, may be decided together so that the controversy may come to an end. It is in this manner that the present two cases--writ petition and Civil Revision-were connected and have been received by nomination made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in both these cases, they are being decided by this common judgment.
(3.) Heard Sri Shishir Kumar. learned counsel for the petitioner-Union of India, and Smt. Ira Sharma assisted by Sri B.K. Sharma (in person) for the supplier at considerable length.;