- (1.) The Food Corporation of India prays for setting aside judgments and decrees dated 8.9.1988 and 6.8.1993 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Patiala and District Judge, Patiala, respectively. The respondent M/s R.K.Enterprises filed a petition under Sections 8, 14 and 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") before a Court at Patiala, raising a dispute with respect to a contract for adhoc handling and transportation for food storage at Rudarpur depot, Nainital. As counsel for the Food Corporation stated that an arbitrator would be appointed, the petition was disposed of on 23.1.1984. However, as an arbitrator was not appointed, M/s R.K.Enterprises filed another petition under Sections 4,12 and 20 of the Act, which was disposed of by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Patiala, on 28.9.1984 by directing appointment of Shri V.N.Bhatnagar, Advocate, as the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator pronounced his award on 27.12.1985. The award along with the record was filed in court. Notice of the award was issued to the parties. The petitioner-Food Corporation of India appeared in court on 10.3.1986 and filed objections on various grounds. The trial court framed the following issues: " 1. Whether the objection petition filed by the objector is within time OPP 2. Whether the objections have been filed by the duly authorised persons OPD 3. Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the objection petition OPD 4. Relief.
(2.) After conclusion of evidence, the trial court rejected the objections filed by the petitioner as barred by time, upheld the award and ordered that award be made a rule of the court. Aggrieved by this order, the Food Corporation of India filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 5.5.1993, the District Judge, Patiala, dismissed the appeal.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that order appointing the arbitrator, proceedings before the arbitrator, the award, the order passed by the trial court and the order passed by the appellate court, are illegal and without jurisdiction. The tender was floated at Bareilly and relates to the Rudarpur Depot of the Food Corporation of India, in the then State of Uttar Pradesh. The civil courts at Patiala had no jurisdiction to direct appointment of an arbitrator. It is further argued that as the offer made by the respondent, in response to a tender notice, did not lead to a concluded contract, the respondent sought for and was refunded his security. In the absence of any subsisting contract between the parties, the civil court had no jurisdiction to direct the appointment of an arbitrator. It is further submitted that as the matter in dispute relates to the Senior Regional Manager Bareilly, service effected at the head officer of the Food Corporation of India at New Delhi, is illegal. It is further argued that the courts below have erred in holding that the objections are barred by time. A perusal of the record reveals that the notice was not sent to the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Rudarpur. The notice was received by the Senior Manager, Rudarpur from the Head Office. The delay in filing objections was, therefore, explained and should have been condoned. It is also argued that as the arbitration clause empowers the Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, New Delhi alone, to appoint an arbitrator, the civil court had no jurisdiction to direct for the appointment of Shri V.N.Bhatnagar, Advocate, as the sole arbitrator.;