Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: nvs in M/S Dhanraj Bajaj & Company vs Navodaya Vidayala Samiti & Ors. on 1 August, 2014Matching Fragments
(vii) it is further the case of the appellant that NIDC was thus only the agent of the respondents no.1&2 NVS and the liability under the Arbitral Award is in fact of NVS.
The writ petition from which this appeal arises, was thus filed (i) to issue show-cause notice to the respondents no.1&2 NVS as to why they were not owning the responsibility and liability under the Arbitral Award aforesaid; (ii) for declaration that the respondents no.1&2 NVS as Principal owner are responsible for all liabilities under the Arbitral Award aforesaid; and, (iii) for declaration that NIDC was only the agency of the respondents no.1&2 NVS and thus the liability under the Arbitral Award is that of the respondents no.1&2 NVS.
3. It was inter alia the contention of the counsel for the appellant before the learned Single Judge that NIDC itself, before the Arbitral Tribunal, had filed an application for substituting NVS in its place but the Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the said application for the reason of the same having been filed at a belated stage to prolong the matter and for the reason that NVS was not a party or signatory to the agreement providing for arbitration.
4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition inter alia observing that the appellant, if aggrieved from the dismissal by the Arbitral Tribunal of the application aforesaid of the NIDC, ought to have challenged the award under the mechanism provided for in the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and that correction of the Arbitral Award as was sought, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not possible. Reliance was placed on SBP & Company Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. (2005) 8 SCC 618.
5. The counsel for the appellant before us also, through lengthy arguments has attempted to show as to how the contract / order for construction, though placed by NIDC upon the appellant, was for and on behalf of the NVS and thus NVS is now liable. It is further contended that the appellant, on account of NIDC having ordered to be wound up, is in a lurch and has been left merely with a paper decree.
6. The appellant itself is to blame for the predicament in which it claims to be today. If it is the case of the appellant that notwithstanding the contract / order having been placed by NIDC, the liability was of NVS, the appellant at the time of making the claim ought to have impleaded NVS also as a party thereto and in which event the adjudication on this aspect also would have taken place, whether before the Arbitral Tribunal and if not possible before the Arbitral Tribunal owing to NVS being not a party to the Agreement and NIDC having not acted on behalf of NVS, in a Civil Court. The appellant having not done so, cannot, today in writ jurisdiction call upon this Court, to investigate as to who in fact is liable for the dues of the appellant or to rule upon the nature of the relationship between NVS and NIDC. Not only so, inspite of the appellant having not done so NIDC nevertheless is informed to have applied before the Arbitral Tribunal for substitution of NVS in its place. The appellant then also did not grab the opportunity and concede to the application. If the appellant had done so, the Arbitral Tribunal possibly would have allowed the application of NIDC. Further, the appellant had yet another opportunity to challenge the Arbitral Award to the said extent under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The appellant failed to do so also. On the contrary, the appellant indulged in misconceived proceedings of objecting to the winding up of NIDC. The appellant, after such repeated negligence cannot approach the Court and call upon the Court to make up for its own negligence, lapses and misconceived actions.
11. Though the counsel for the appellant has not contended but we find that the Arbitral Award as aforesaid is also against the "the Project Manager (NVS), the National Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.". We make it clear that nothing contained in the order of the learned Single Judge or in this order shall come in the way of the appellant, if able to, contending before the Executing Court on the basis thereof that the award is also against NVS and which contention if taken by the appellant shall be dealt by the Executing Court on its own merits, again without being influenced by any observation herein.