Central Warehousing Corporation vs M/S A.S.A. Transport . And Anr. on 18 January, 2023

[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Central Warehousing Corporation vs M/S A.S.A. Transport . And Anr. on 18 January, 2023

Bench: M.M. Sundresh

                                            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                            CIVIL APPEAL NO.5396 OF 2010



     CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION                                        .....        APPELLANT

                                                VERSUS

     M/S A.S.A. TRANSPORT AND ANOTHER                                       .....       RESPONDENTS




                                                    O R D E R

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Central Warehousing Corporation. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent no.1 - M/s. A.S.A. Transport, a proprietorship firm of S. Ameer Basha. Accordingly, the respondent is proceeded ex-parte.

We are of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment dated 11.12.2007 for setting aside the award on the ground that the arbitrator has held the proceedings in Delhi may not be correct. The venue of the arbitration and the place of arbitration has to be fixed by the arbitrator in terms of Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Respondent no.1 had participated in these proceedings by filing written submissions etc. As per the arbitration clause, the venue of arbitration was to be a place as fixed by the arbitrator in his sole discretion. Signature Not Verified Be that as it may, we are in agreement with the reasoning Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA given in the impugned judgment setting aside the award as the Date: 2023.01.19 17:16:35 IST Reason: arbitrator had failed to consider all the claims raised by 1 respondent no.1 on the ground that reference to arbitration was restricted to claim no.1.

The arbitrator had clearly erred in not examining all the claims raised by respondent no.1 in view of the terms and conditions of the arbitration clause/agreement. It is not the case of the appellant that any of the claims fell in the category of excepted matters.

In view of the said finding, the Division Bench of the High Court was also right in setting aside the award of the arbitrator allowing the counter-claims raised by the appellant as they were connected and linked with the claims raised by respondent no.1. Recording the aforesaid, we dismiss the present appeal with no orders as to cost.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

..................J. (SANJIV KHANNA) ..................J. (M.M. SUNDRESH) NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 18, 2023.

ps




                                      2
ITEM NO.101                COURT NO.7                   SECTION XII

               S U P R E M E C O U R T O F       I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                    CIVIL APPEAL   NO(S).   5396/2010

CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION                         APPELLANT(S)

                                   VERSUS

M/S A.S.A. TRANSPORT AND ANOTHER                        RESPONDENT(S)

Date : 18-01-2023 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Appellant(s) Mr. K.K. Tyagi, Adv.

Ms. Garima Tyagi, Adv.

Mr. Iftekhar Ahmad, Adv.

Mr. P. Narasimhan, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

    (POOJA SHARMA)                              (R.S. NARAYANAN)
   COURT MASTER (SH)                          COURT MASTER (NSH)

(Signed order is placed on the file.) 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Supreme Court - Daily Orders