Delhi High Court
Govind Ram Mittal vs Union Of India on 30 November, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1988(1)ARBLR11(DELHI), 34(1988)DLT331
JUDGMENT N.C. Kochhar, J.
(1) Govind Ram Mittal (the petitioner) has filed this application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the Union of India (the respondent). The case of the petitioner is as under :
(2) In response to the invitation to tender, the petitioner submitted his tender for supply of Dosutie Scowred and the tender was accepted by the respondent vide advance acceptance of tender No. Reg. Cell/T-4/1545 dated 25th March 1982 which made the form DGS&D-68(revised)applicableto the contract. The contract between the parties is governed by clause 24-of the General Conditions of Contract according to which in the event of the disputes arising between the parties out of the said contract, they have to be referred by the Director General of Supplies and Disposals to an officer in the Ministry of Law, Government of India. The following disputes and differences have arisen between the parties : (a) Disputes pertaining to mala fide and illegal non-payment of Rs. 53,25 8.00 being the balance price. (b) Disputes pertaining to mala fide non-payment of interest of Rs. 19,971.00 -@ 18% p. a. on the above said amount of Rs. 53,258.00 till the date of payment, and (c) disputes pertaining to the claim of damages of Rs. 30,000.00 , being the loss of production etc. (3) Notwithstanding the above said disputes, the Director General of Supplies and Disposals failed to appoint an arbitrator and thereby forfeited his right to appoint one and now the court has to appoint an arbitrator. The petitioner has prayed that the arbitration agreement between the parties .be filed in court and an arbitrator be appointed to decide the disputes.
(4) Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent who has contested the same on the grounds that the contract was concluded at Bombay and that this court has no jurisdiction and that the petitioner never raised/any dispute or asked for the appointment of the arbitrator and no cause of action has arisen.
(5) After taking rejoinder, following issues were framed on 8th August 1985: 1. Has this court no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present petition (registered as Suit No. 1469-A/84) ? 2. Is the petitioner not entitled to appointment of an arbitrator as prayed for in the petition ? Opr 3. Relief.
(6) The parties were allowed to lead their evidence in the form of affidavtis.
(7) I have heard Mr. O.P.Popli, advocate for the petitioner and have also perused the record of the case. Since none has appeared on behalf of the respondent at the time of arguments, I could not have the advantage of hearing any one on behalf of the respondent/Union India. My findings on the issues are as under,: Issues No. 1.
(8) Admittedly Union of India is having its office in Delhi. According to clause (c) of Section 2 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the court means a civil court having jurisdiction to decide the question forming subject matter of a reference if the same had been the subject matter of a suit. Under section 20 the Code of Civil Procedure, the respondent's office being in Delhi, this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter. Even otherwise, the petitioner has produced on record a copy of the telegram dated 25th March 1982 which shows that the said telegram was issued on behalf of the President of India from Delhi by Shri Radha Krishnan confirming the concluding of the contract and this fact has also been mentioned in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of his case and there is nothing to controvert it in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent and sworn by Shri Maidan Singh, Assistant Director of Supplies & Disposals. I, therefore, hold that this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the petition.
(9) The issue is accordingly decided in favor of the petitioner and against the respondent. Issue No. 2.
(10) In the reply it is not disputed that the contract between the parties is governed by arbitration clause, and the claims made by the petitioner have not been admitted. Those claims arise out of the contract between the parties. The disputes have thus arisen between them. There being an arbitration clause 333 governing the contract, the petitioner has a right to ask for the appointment of an arbitrator. The issue is accordingly decided in favor of the petitioner. Relief.
(11) According to the arbitration agreement, the arbitrator has to be appointed by the Director General of Supplies & Disposals, Mew Delhi for deciding the disputes mentioned in the application. The parties having agreed to such a clause, the court cannot appoint an arbitrator. To be fair to Mr. Popli, it may be mentioned that the prayer made in the petition that the court should appoint an arbitrator has not been pressed at the Bar.
(12) .CONSEQUENTLY, in view of my findings on issues No. I and 2 allow this application and direct that the arbitration agreement between the parties be filed in court and the disputes mentioned in the petition be referred to the sole arbitration of an officer of the Ministry of Law,.Government of India, to be appointed by the Director General of Supplies, & Disposals, New Delhi who will do so within a period of two months from today.
(13) A copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Supplies & Disposals, New Delhi.
(14) Suit No. 1469-A of 1984 stands disposed of accordingly.