D.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition for revision and is directed against the decision of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class Delhi . This petition has arisen in the following circumstances.
(2.) THERE was a contract for the purchase of Aerosol Bombs from the Director General of Supplies and Disposals , who was acting on behalf of the Union of India. The contract was concluded by two documents, the tender and the acceptance of the tender. The tender was made on the 29th July, 1952, Exhibit P.1, and the same was accepted on the 12th August, 1952. One of the printed clauses in the contract, namely, Clause 14, is the usual arbitration clause and is in these terms: 14. All disputes and differences arising out of or in any wise touching or concerning this agreement whatsoever shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Director General of Supplies and Disposals, and if the said Director General is unable or unwilling to act, to the sole arbitration of such other person as is nominated by the said Director General. It will be no objection to any appointment that the Director General of Disposals or the person appointed by him is a Government servant; that he had had to deal with the matters to which this agreement relates; and that in the course of his duties as such Government servant he has expressed views on all or any of the matters in dispute or differences. The award of the Director General of Supplies and Disposals or the Arbitrator so appointed shall be final and binding on the parties to this agreement. It is a term of this agreement that in the event of the Director General of Supplies and Disposals, to whom the matter is originally referred being transferred or vacating his office for any other reason, his successor in office shall be deemed to have been appointed the sole Arbitrator in accordance with the terms of this agreement. He shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage at which it was left by his predecessor and the provisions of this clause shall apply. In the event of the Director General of Supplies and Disposals, or the person nominated by him as an Arbitrator being removed by an order of Court the reference shall stand Exhausted. To all such proceedings the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, shall apply. As disputes arose between the parties, the matter was referred to the arbitration of Mr. N.M. Buch, I.C.S., the then Director General. Some proceedings were taken before Mr. Buch and on his leaving they office, his successor in office Mr. Suchdeva, I.C.S., framed the issues, recorded evidence and fixed a date for arguments. Mr. Sachdeva was also transferred and was succeeded by Mr. V.N. Rajan, I.C.S. before whom a plea was raised that he could not entertain the reference because the reference had exhausted itself after Mr. Sachdeva had been transferred. He, therefore, directed the Petitioner to apply to the Court for a direction and thereafter an application was made under Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act to the Court. The main prayer in the petition besides other prayers, which are wholly Irrelevant for our purposes, was that the arbitration agreement had exhausted itself after the transfer of Mr. Sachdeva. This plea did not prevail with the trial Court. It dismissed the petition. It is against this order that the present petition for revision is directed. The sole question that requires determination is as to what is the scope and ambit of Clause 14 of the agreement. The pertinent words in Clause 14 are "in the event of the Director General of Supplies and Disposals, to whom the matter is originally referred being transferred or vacating his office for any other reason, his successor in office shall be deemed to have been appointed the sole Arbitrator in accordance with the terms of this agreement." The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that only one successor is contemplated by this clause. I am, however, unable to agree with this contention. No authority on the point has been cited for this proposition, it may be incidentally mentioned that this clause has been in vogue now for over 25 years. Moreover, the successor would include successive successors. There is no warrant for the proposition that the successor only means a single successor. Such an interpretation will make no sense . The successor therefore would include various successors in office. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this contention.
(3.) THE second contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that there is no concluded or a valid contract or to put it in the words of the counsel 'no valid contract'. So far as this plea is concerned, all that the learned Counsel was able to argue was that there is a clause in the agreement whereby the Government stipulated that in the event of their being not in possession of the goods, the contract would be deemed to have been cancelled. This clause, in my opinion, does not render the contract void. The contract was for the purchase of goods at a certain price and the moment one party made an offer and the offer was accepted by the other, the contract was concluded. The non -availability of the goods would not render the contract void. The argument that there is no valid contract is also without force.;