UNION OF INDIA Vs. NAGINA ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the IA the plaintiff has filed objections to the award dated 7/10/1996 made and published by Shri R.N. Poddar. Legal Advisor to the Government of India, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi who was appointed as Sole Arbitrator in this case. The petitioner had awarded the contract to the respondent for supply of 62,500 k.gs. of soap woolen powder and/or flakes. The respondent was required to furnish security deposit of Rs.34,375.00 by 7th May, 1986. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent did not furnish the security. Time for furnishing the security was extended upto 31/10/1986 vide letter dated 25/09/1986. Respondent still failed to furnish the security and accordingly the contract was terminated. The petitioner's further case is that the petitioner made the purchases from the market at the rist and cost of the respondent and had to pay a sum of Rs.2,47,000.00 in excess of the price agreed with the respondent and on account of such risk purchase the loss of Rs.2,47,000.00 suffered by the petitioners became payable by the respondent. Accordingly, Shri Poddar as mentioned above, was appointed as Arbitrator.

(2.) As per the award given by the Arbitrator the claim of Rs.2,47,000.00 as well as claim of interest thereon had been disallowed. The learned Arbitrator has given the following reasons for disallowing the claim :-

(3.) The aforesaid reasons recorded by the Arbitrator, would reveal that finding of fact is recorded that petitioner failed to prove that the alleged extension ( i.e. vide letter dated 25th September. 1986) of time for furnishing security deposit and submission of advance sample had ever been accepted by respondent - Contractor. In the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner could not even point out as to how the aforesaid narration given by the Arbitrator is factually incorrect Inasmuch as no document could be produced to show that respondent had ever accepted the aforesaid extension. There is, therefore, no ground to Interfere with the award which is based on material on record. Moreover, this Court is not sitting as appellate Court over the findings recorded by the Arbitrator. The Objections are accordingly dismissed. The Award rendered by the Arbitrator is made the Rule of the Court. Decree in terms of the award Is accordingly passed. Decree be drawn accordingly.