Delhi District Court
D.N. Kochhar vs Fiit Jee Ltd. on 26 August, 2011
: 1 :
D.N. KOCHHAR VS FIIT JEE LTD.
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE01 :
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
ARB No. 05/11
D.N. Kochhar
3A, New Majitha House,
Albert Road, Amritsar,
PUNJAB .........Applicant /Objector/Claimant
Versus
FIITJEE Limited
ICES House,
29A, Kalu Sarai,
Sarvpriya Vihar,
New Delhi - 110 016. .................Respondent
26.08.2011
ORDER :
1 Vide this order, I shall decide the present application of the petitioner against the award dated 27.09.2010, received by the petitioner on 11.10.2010, passed by Ld. Arbitrator, Sh. Sibhash Tagra, whereby the Ld. Arbitrator rejected the claim of the petitioner.
Contd....P...1 of 18
: 2 :
D.N. KOCHHAR VS FIIT JEE LTD.
2. The brief facts are:
The son of the petitioner Mr. Anirudh signed the agreement with the respondent institute on 02.03.08 for his son's admission in a Pinnacle Two Years Programme and deposited the entire admission fee of Rs. 1,80,180/ on 06.03.08. After attending some classes, petitioner's son felt dissatisfied and cheated since at the time of signing the admission contract, the respondent assured that there shall be three classes per day with limited number of students. However, the ground reality was that the frequency of classes were twice per day and that too amongst more students that the teachers were equipped to handle at one go. Further the faculty members were frequently changed by the respondents. Petitioner has alleged that such an act on the part of the respondent is an apparent breach of the agreement and the promise.
3 The petitioner wrote a letter dated 01.07.2008 to the respondent and requested them to refund the fee since claimant's son was not inclined to continue with the programme. The respondent vide letter dated 03.10.2008 informed the claimant that as per the terms of the agreement, no fee can be refunded under any circumstances once paid as per clause 5 of the agreement.
4 Vide letter dated 11.10.2008, the respondent sent the notice for arbitration to the petitioner and appointed the Ld. Arbitrator. The respondent, in the said letter, for the first time, took the plea that claimant's son left the course midway and voluntarily. 5 Ld. Arbitrator passed the impugned award on 27.09.2008 whereby he has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the sole ground that clause 5 in the said agreement has to be adhered to wherein it states that fee once paid shall not be refundable. The grounds for the present appeal are as follows:
Contd....P...2 of 18 : 3 : D.N. KOCHHAR VS FIIT JEE LTD.
a) The Ld. Arbitrator was apprised of the ruling passed against the respondent wherein also respondent relied upon the clause about non refundable fee. However, the Ld. arbitrator did not consider the said ruling FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs Minathi Rath (Dr.) 2007(1) CPC
113.
b) The respondent, in the letter dated 11.10.2008, has alleged that claimant's son left the course midway and for a course of duration respondent voluntarily. Such a statement is untrue since the claimant paid the fees in March 2008 for a course of duration of 2 years. However, in July only claimant requested the respondent for the refund of the cheques after 2 months and not midway as it was alleged. Moreover, claimant's son did not leave the classes voluntarily and it was also apprised to the learned Sole Arbitrator.
c) Award is not based on true construction of terms and conditions of the contract between the parties and as such the said award is in conflict with public policy. Only after attending the classes, can a student evaluate the quality of an institution. In the present case, the claimant's son left two years course after two months finding it to be unfruitful. In such a scenario, a "non refundable fee" clause, which has been found to be nonbinding in the said ruling where the student left after one year, could not have been made to be sole basis of rejecting the claim.
d) The learned Arbitrator has ignored certain important clauses of the agreement between the parties qua the ruling cited. In the said ruling Hon'ble Justice J D Kapoor as President of the State Commission alongwith a member, termed extracting entire fee at the the admission stage as "Highly unethical, unscrupulous and unfair trade practice, In fact, vide Contd....P...3 of 18 : 4 : D.N. KOCHHAR VS FIIT JEE LTD.
the said ruling, the Commission issued direction to the education institutes to refrain from charging fee for the whole duration in advance by way of lump sum payments. The ruling also notes that the violation of the guideline shall entail heavy damages and sentence of imprisonment or fine. Despite that, the respondent kept indulging in unfair trade practice.
e) The learned Arbitrator has passed the award in disregard of the pleadings, documents and agreement between the parties.
6 Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued that the impugned award is vitiated as the Ld. Arbitrator did not take into consideration any of the pleas of the petitioner and passed the award solely on the basis of the clause of the nonrefundable clause of the fees. 7 Ld. Counsel for petitioner submitted that the son of the petitioner did not leave the course midway and argued that such a statement is palpably untrue since the claimant paid fee in March 2008 for a course of duration of 2 years. However, in July only claimant requested the respondent about the refund of fee just after 2 months and not midway. Moreover, claimant's son did not leave the classes voluntarily and it was also apprised to the Ld. Arbitrator.
8 Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued that the award is against the public policy of India and referred to the ruling of the apex Court in ONGC Vs SAW Pipes Limited in AIR 2003 SC 2629. Ld. counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner had submitted before the Ld. arbitrator that respondent had suffered no loss as the seat left by the son of the petitioner got filled by some other candidate but Ld. Arbitrator did not ask for any attendance registers or any other material to be produced by the respondent for the period after the son Contd....P...4 of 18 : 5 : D.N. KOCHHAR VS FIIT JEE LTD.
of the petitioner left the seat.
9 Ld. counsel for respondent submitted that the son of the petitioner took admission in pinnacle a two years program upon certain terms and conditions to undertake coaching and such terms and conditions enumerated in agreement duly signed by the petitioner and the classes were provided by the respondent as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties.
10 Ld. Counsel for respondent argued that petitioner's claim is not maintainable as according to the terms and conditions duly executed between the parties, the fees once paid is not to be refunded and as it was the prerogative of the respondent to refer the matter to arbitrator as per the agreement executed between the parties and accordingly, Sh Subhash Tagra, was appointed as a sole Arbitrator.
11 Ld. Counsel for respondent denied that the learned Arbitrator has not considered the ruling of FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs Minathi Rath (Dr.) 2007(1) CPC 113, while passing the impugned award, Ld. Counsel for respondent argued that the said ruling has been stayed by the order of National Commission. Ld. Counsel for respondent argued that the award passed by the learned Arbitrator is based on the Judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Bharthi Knitting Co. Vs DHL worldwide Express Courier" (AIR 1996) SC 2508 and also "Plonymat India Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs National Insurance Company" (2005) 9 SCC 174 and as such the award passed by the Ld Arbitrator is just and proper and is not liable to be set aside.
Contd....P...5 of 18
: 6 :
D.N. KOCHHAR VS FIIT JEE LTD.
12 Ld. Counsel for respondent also denied that the award is conflict with
public policy. Ld. Counsel for respondent argued that the respondent is a well reputed institution known for its quality throughout the world and the evaluation of the son of the claimant is immature and polluted. Ld. Counsel for respondent argued that the petitioner had entered into an agreement prior to sending his son to attending the classes in which it had been clearly mentioned that the fees once paid is nonrefundable and the petitioner being an educated person had gone through the terms and conditions of the agreement before signing the same and therefore, is bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement. 13 Ld. Counsel for respondent vehemently denied that the terms "Fee once paid cannot be refunded" is unconscionable. Ld. counsel for respondent placed reliance on various judgments in support of his contentions. 14 Heard the arguments and have perused carefully the material placed on record.
15 The respondent has challenged the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that petitioner is not the aggrieved person rather it is his son and the petition is not maintainable. A perusal of the arbitral record reveals that arbitration proceedings were held between petitioner and the respondent only and no such objection was taken by the respondent. Even the notice for arbitration, dated October 11, 2008 was sent to the petitioner only. Thus the objection of the respondent is not tenable.
16 Ld. Arbitrator has rejected the claim of the petitioner and has observed
Contd....P...6 of 18
: 7 :
D.N. KOCHHAR VS FIIT JEE LTD.
in the impugned award that:
"The factum of the agreement dated 2.03.2008 is not disputed by the parties and bare perusal of Clause 5 of the said agreement reveals that the fees once paid cannot be refunded and the petitioner had agreed to the terms and conditions of the said agreement and therefore is not entitled for the refund of the fees. The claimant is an educated person and had signed the documents of terms and conditions and therefore it cannot be said that the agreement was one sided. The claimant has not mentioned as to how he was forced to sign the said agreement. Once the terms and conditions are agreed by both the parties then the same are binding upon both the parties and I am fortified by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Bharthi Knitting Co. Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier (AIR 1996 SC 2508)' by which it was held that the courts cannot go behind the terms entered between the parties and therefore, parties are bound by the terms of the contract." The observations of Ld. Arbitrator reveal that Ld. Arbitrator has considered signing the agreement by the petitioner without any force to be equivalent to signing the same voluntarily and his observation "The claimant is an educated person and had signed the documents of terms and conditions and therefore it cannot be said that the agreement was one sided." is not understandable. Signing the documents of terms and conditions cannot be held in itself to lead to conclusion that the agreement was not one sided. When a student opts to join Coaching Classes and therefore signs the Declaration, he has no choice or option to seek exemption from any of the clauses. The only option available is not to join the classes if he does not wish to sign the agreement. Thus such an agreement cannot be held to be bilateral or voluntary. One can judge the quality of teaching and the other ancillary things connected to Contd....P...7 of 18 : 8 : D.N. KOCHHAR VS FIIT JEE LTD.
coaching classes like contents of study material, their printing quality, number of students per class, competence of Faculty members, individual attention given to each student etc. only once he joins. The agreement and the Declaration which is signed at time of joining these classes is standard form contracts where the Institutes exercise dominant power and thus students do not have any bargaining power.
Ld. counsel for respondent placed reliance on various judgments cited as Apeejay Institute of Management Vs. Prashant Ashok, I (2009) CPJ 10 (NC); Brilliant Classes Vs. Ashbel Sam, Revision Petition No. 270 of 2006; Anshuman Das Gupta Vs. FIITJEE & Anr, IV (2008) CPJ 4 and FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. AIEEE Guru, FA NO. 814/2008. In none of these cases, any deficiency in service was alleged by the claimant and the refund was claimed by the claimant due to their own difficulty or incapacity to attend the classes except in one matter titled as Anshuman Dass Gupta Vs. FIITJEE & Others, FA NO. 88 of 2008 decided on 15/05/2008; wherein the fee was not refunded because of the Clause that fees once paid is nonrefundable. However, after 2008, there have been many judgments by various Consumer Forums as well as NDRC and of Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court which have held the clause "the fees once paid is nonrefundable" to be unconscionable.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter Central Inland Water Transport Corporation. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, AIR 1986 SC 1571 held that an unfair or an unreasonable contract entered into between parties of unequal bargaining power was void as unconscionable, under Section 23 of the Act. It has been held that the courts would relieve the weaker party to a contract from unconscionable, oppressive, unfair, unjust and unconstitutional obligations in a standard form contract. The Supreme Court has also held Contd....P...8 of 18 : 9 : D.N. KOCHHAR VS FIIT JEE LTD.
that standard form contracts drawn up even by the Government must be fair, and that these contracts are open to judicial review on grounds of unreasonableness or unfairness. The Supreme Court has upheld a plea that a printed form contract was void on grounds of coercion, where the parties had unequal bargaining power. A printed form in a drycleaning contract, exempting the drycleaner from any liability in the event of loss or damage to the clothes concerned has been held to be contrary to public policy and therefore void.
To quote, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as "Should then our courts not advance with the times? Should they still continue to cling to outmoded concepts and outworn ideologies? Should we not adjust our thinking caps to match the fashion of the day? Should all jurisprudential development pass us by, leaving us floundering in the sloughs of nineteenthcentury theories? Should the strong be permitted to push the weak to the wall? Should they be allowed to ride roughshod over the weak? Should the courts sit back and watch supinely while the strong trample under 5 foot the rights of the weak? We have a Constitution for our country. Our judges are bound by their oath to "uphold the Constitution and the laws". The Constitution was enacted to secure to all the citizens of this country social and economic justice. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to all people equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws. The principle deducible from the above discussions on this part of the case is in consonance with right and reason, Intended to secure social and economic justice and conforms to the mandate of the great equality clause in Article 14. This principle Contd....P...9 of 18 : 10 : D.N. KOCHHAR VS FIIT JEE LTD.
is that the courts will not enforce and will, when called upon to do so, strike an unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power. It is difficult to give an exhaustive list of all bargains of this type. No court can visualize the different situations which can arise in the affairs of men. One can only attempt to give some illustrations.
For instance, the above principle will apply where the inequality of bargaining power is the result of the great disparity in the economic strength of the contracting parties. It will apply where the inequality is the result of circumstances, whether of the creation of the parties or not. It will apply to situations in which the speaker party is in a position in which he can obtain goods or services or means of livelihood only upon the terms imposed by the stronger party or go without them. It will also apply where a man has no choice, or rather no meaningful choice, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rules may be. ...there can be myriad situations which result in unfair and unreasonable bargains between parties possessing wholly disproportionate and unequal bargaining power. These cases can neither be enumerated nor fully illustrated. The court must judge each case on its own facts and circumstances."
Contd....P...10 of 18
: 11 :
D.N. KOCHHAR VS FIIT JEE LTD.
17 The facts of this case also demonstrate the unfairness of an
unconscionable contract executed between a person who has no meaningful choice but to five assents to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form. In D.T.C. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor congress, 1990 (1) Supp. SCR 142, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the freedom of contract must be founded on equality of bargaining power between contracting parties. Though ad idem is assumed, the standard form contract is the rule. The consent or consensus ad idem of a weaker party be totally absent. He must assent to it in terms of the dotted line contract or to forgo the goods or services. The freedom of equal bargaining power is largely an illusion.
18 At the time of signing the agreement, son of the petitioner did not know about the deficiencies in the teaching programme of the respondent or of the competence of the faculty members or about the number of students per class. Withdrawal of his son from the Pinnacle program of the respondent by the petitioner cannot be held to be a voluntary act when it was actuated by the reasons mentioned in the petition. Respondent in paragraph 6 of its reply before Ld. Arbitrator has averred that the respondent keeps the seat vacant, if a student left the course midway i.e. why the fee is not refundable. The respondent did not make the said averment in specific for the son of the petitioner and did not place any material before the Ld. Arbitrator that the seat left by son of the petitioner was left open. Ld. Arbitrator also did not call for any such material to satisfy himself despite the said objection being taken by the petitioner in its replication.
19 Perusal of the order sheet of Ld. Arbitrator dated 29.05.2009 records "Rejoinder Filed, copy given." However, no copy of the replication/rejoinder is available on the Contd....P...11 of 18 : 12 : D.N. KOCHHAR VS FIIT JEE LTD.
arbitral record, nor any mention of replication/rejoinder is found in the award. It reveals that Ld. Arbitrator did not consider the averments made by the petitioner in rebuttal of the reply of the respondent and also did not take into consideration the judgments which the petitioner had made a reference in his replication/rejoinder in support of his claim. Award of Ld. Arbitrator is thus vitiated as he passed the award in disregard of the pleadings between the parties.
20 Petitioner sought reliance before the Ld. Arbitrator on ruling passed against the respondent in the matter titled FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs Minathi Rath (Dr.) 2007(1) CPC 113, wherein the respondent was directed to refund the fees and the term that "fees once paid is not refundable" was held to be void and unenforceable. In that matter also, respondent relied upon the clause about non refundable fee. However, the Ld. Arbitrator did not consider the said ruling while passing the impugned award. Respondent, in the said matter, had alleged the identical defenses of students leaving the course midway and voluntarily.
21 Ld. Counsel for Respondent has argued that the said decision has been stayed by National Commission in 2010. However, on the day when the award was passed, the law laid down in the said decision was binding upon the Ld. Arbitrator and thus the impugned award is invalid and the Ld. Arbitrator should have decided the claim of the petitioner in light of law laid down in the said judgment.
22 There are many other decisions wherein it has been held that the term that "a fee once paid is not refundable" is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in III (2009) CPJ 33 NC], dismissed the Contd....P...12 of 18 : 13 : D.N. KOCHHAR VS FIIT JEE LTD.
revision petition no. 813 of 2009 against Order dated 10.12.2008 in Appeal No. 08/1043 of State Commission, DelhiDecided on 3042009 in the matter titled Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh. In that matter, the complainant had deposited the fees for two years but discontinued the studies after 1 year on the ground that coaching was not up to the mark and sought proportionate refund of the fees from the Institute. District forum allowed that complaint. In appeal, State Commission held fees once paid shall not be refunded clause to be unconscionable and unfair and therefore not enforceable and the appeal was dismissed. In revision, Public Notice issued by the UGC was upheld and it was held that the institute was unfair and unjust in retaining the tuition fee even after the student withdraw from their institute
- Public notice issued by UGC directing all the institutions to refund the money of the students for the period they have not attended the college/Institution was upheld and Revision Petition was dismissed.
On 24.03.2011, State Commission of Chandigarh in the matter titled M/s FIIT JEE Limited Vs. Manmeet Singh, through his father and natural guardian while deciding First Appeal no. 314 of 2010 and First Appeal no. 379 of 2010, negated the following contentions of Ld. counsel for FIITJEE worded as "The learned counsel for the appellant/OP No.2 has referred to Paragraphs No.6 and 7 of the Declaration Form (Annexure OPIII) vide which the complainant agreed not to claim refund of the fee deposited by him if he left the institute for any reason whatsoever. The learned counsel also referred to Paragraphs No.17 and 18 of Annexure OPIII and argued that this undertaking was given after reading and understanding the said clauses contained in the Declaration and Enrolment Form and was voluntarily given by him. He also referred to Para No.12 of Annexure OPIII and argued that the complainant Contd....P...13 of 18 : 14 : D.N. KOCHHAR VS FIIT JEE LTD.
had promised to abide by the rules and regulations, referred to above and therefore, the complainant was not entitled to the refund of the fee as he left the institute midway." State Commission of Chandigarh after referring to copious case law, where the fees was ordered to be refunded to the students despite the nonrefundable clause about the fees in the contract and it was specifically held that any clause saying that fees once paid will not be refunded is unconscionable and unfair and therefore not enforceable ordered for refund of proportionate amount to the respondent.
It was observed as:
"In the case Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh, 2009 (3) CPC 187, there existed such a condition in the brochure issued by the petitioner from whose side, an argument was advanced that the fee was non refundable or nontransferable under any circumstances. His contention was not accepted by the learned District Forum which held that any clause saying that fees once paid will not be refunded is unconscionable and unfair and therefore not enforceable. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the revision petition was also dismissed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as National Commission). Again this question arose in the case Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashwani Verma, 2011 CTJ 288 (CP) (NCDRC) where a complaint was opposed, interalia, on the ground that the fees paid were non refundable and the respondent was bound by its terms and conditions. Their contention was neither accepted by the learned District Forum nor by the State Commission.
The revision petition filed by the Institute was also dismissed by the Hon'ble National Contd....P...14 of 18 : 15 : D.N. KOCHHAR VS FIIT JEE LTD.
Commission. In the case GGS College of Modern Technology Vs. Mrs. Kusum Arora, 2011 CTJ 346 (CP) (SCDRC), Rule 8 of the prospectus of Appellant provided that no refund was admissible after the cut off date. However, in that case also, refund was allowed and the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by this Commission. In another case Principal, S.D. College Vs. Reetika Manhas & Anr., IV (2008) CPJ 502, again such a question arose before this Commission wherein the appellant refused to refund the fee on the ground that she had given declaration that she would not claim refund in case she left the college. This contention was not accepted by the learned District Forum and the appeal filed by the Institution was dismissed. In view of these authorities, it becomes clear that mere declaration obtained by the Coaching Institute from the complainant that the fee deposited by him/her would not be refunded in any circumstances, is unconscionable and cannot be enforced against the complainant."
23 Three of the cases which have been referred in this judgment have been passed in the year 2011 and one of these have been passed by National Commission in 2011(Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashwani Verma, 2011 CTJ 288 (CP) (NCDRC)). Thus, even if the decision in the matter titled, FIIT JEE Ltd. Vs Minathi Rath (Dr.) 2007(1) CPC 113, has been stayed in the facts of that case by National Commission, on similar facts, many decisions have been passed by various forums and also National Commission itself support that the nonrefundable clause about the fees in the contract and it was specifically held that any clause saying that fees once paid will not be refunded is unconscionable and unfair and therefore not enforceable.
24 In the case Atam Parkash Khattar Vs. Commissioner & Secretary to
Contd....P...15 of 18
: 16 :
D.N. KOCHHAR VS FIIT JEE LTD.
Govt. of Haryana, Civil Writ Petition No.13308 of 2009 decided on 21.7.2010 by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, it was observed that educational institutions cannot be permitted to behave like a business establishment who work with profit motive. It was held that there was no justification on their part in retaining the substantial fee paid by a student who decides not to pursue his/her studies in the said institution. In that case, fee was ordered to be refunded by the petitioner.
25 In matter titled Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh, 2009 (3) CPC 187, the National Commission, in Paragraph No.7, held that it was unjust to collect the fees for the total period of the course. In another case Nipur Nagar Vs. Symbiosis Institute of International Business, I (2009) CPJ 3 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission after quoting the public notice issued by the University Grants Commission, held that the Institute was unfair and unjust in retaining the tuition fee even after the student withdrew from their institute.
In the matter titled Islamic Academy of Education and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2003 (6) SCC 697, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an educational institution could only charge the prescribed fee for one semester/year and not for the entire course. On its basis, the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashwani Verma (Supra) held as follows: "...The principles laid down by the Apex Court would apply with equal force to the training institutes who collect fees in advance, though not due, in order to prepare the students for Contd....P...16 of 18 : 17 : D.N. KOCHHAR VS FIIT JEE LTD.
various examinations. Charging fees in advance beyond the current semester/year would certainly amount to unfair trade practice and the same cannot be countenanced..."
26 Signing the agreement voluntarily is not the only requirement to determine the validity of a contract. If the terms of a contract are unconscionable, it is hit by Section 23 of Contract Act and such a contract cannot be enforced. 27 Enforcement of a contract which is hit by section 23 of Contract Act is clear violation of Section 28 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Section 28 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act in its clause 1, sub clause (a) provides 'in an arbitration other than an international commercial arbitration, the arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute submitted to arbitration in accordance with the substantive law for the time being in force in India.' Passing an award against the provisions of Section 28 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act is against the public policy of India. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in ONGC Vs SAW Pipes Limited in AIR 2003 SC 2629, that if the award is passed in violation of section 28, it would be patently illegal which could be interfered under Section 34. It was also observed that: "The phrase 'public policy of India' is not required to be given a narrower meaning. As stated earlier, the said term is susceptible of narrower or wider meaning depending upon the object and the purpose of the legislation. Hence the award which is passed in contravention of section 24, Section 28 or 31 could be set aside." 28 In view of the aforesaid observations and the law laid down in the referred cases herein, award of the Ld. Arbitrator is set aside and the award is remitted to the Ld. Arbitrator Contd....P...17 of 18 : 18 : D.N. KOCHHAR VS FIIT JEE LTD.
to decide the proportionate amount of fees to be refunded to the petitioner in light of law laid down in the abovesaid decisions.
29 The arbitral record along with copy of the this order be sent to Ld. Arbitrator. 30 File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance. Dictated and announced in the open court on 26.08.2011 (Dr. Neera Bharihoke) ADJI(South) Saket Courts 26.08.2011 Contd....P...18 of 18