Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

During the pendency of the instant application, the petitioner admitted the award with respect of Claims no. 1, 2, 3 & 4 along with the interest and accordingly on 17.03.2010, the petitioner has released an amount of Rs. 13,13,763.08/- in favour of the respondent and the respondent had acknowledged the same.

Mr. Jit Roy, Ld. Advocate representing the petitioner submits that the respondent had relied some internal documents of the petitioner and the Ld. Tribunal has passed an Award relying upon the said internal documents of the petitioner company which is not permissible under law.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said internal documents are the internal notes and opinions of the department and the said documents were neither published nor communicated to the petitioner at any point of time.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that if the internal documents are allowed to be taken into consideration while deciding the dispute, the same would open the floodgates for the contractors.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Claim no. 5 of the respondent is barred by limitation as the respondent requested for supply of materials for fabrication of Holding Down Bolts free of cost on 27th October, 1987 and the petitioner refused to supply the same on 6th November, 1987.

The petitioner has raised the issue before the Ld. Arbitrator regarding internal document and before dealing with the each claims raised by the respondent, the Arbitrator has decided the preliminary issues out of which the instant issue was one. The documents were exhibited as "Ex. G"

collectively on the production of the claimant at the time of evidence of the claimant. Ld. Arbitrator has also recorded that the petitioner has raised specific objection to the said letters stating that those internal documents between the petitioner and his clients or the other agencies which the respondent cannot relied in support of his claim because contract between the petitioner and his client are different between the petitioner and the claimant. It is also recorded that it was the case of the petitioner before the Ld. Arbitrator that the petitioner claim certain payments for his clients and got the payments therefore that cannot establish admissibility of claim of the claimant because issues are related to separate contract and claimant has to prove its own claim on the basis of its own documents. The said documents were shown to the petitioner's witness during his examination as RW1 and the witness of the petitioner has admitted the correctness of the said documents and the said correspondence related to the particular dispute between the petitioner and the respondent arising out of the agreement entered between them. Ld. Arbitrator also recorded that the existence of the documents admitted by the petitioner and the contents of the documents were also admitted by the petitioner and thus there is no reason not to rely the said documents.
As per the judgments referred by the petitioner (supra) is settled law that noting in a notes file does not have the sanction of law to be an effective order. It is only an expression of feeling by the concern officer on the subject under review. In the instant case the claimant during his examination has produced letters exchange between the petitioner and his clients and the same was also admitted by the petitioner during cross-examination. During argument, before the Ld. Arbitrator, the petitioner has objected stating that the said documents are internal documents between them and their clients/ other agencies and during the cross examination the witness of the petitioner as RW1 admitted the said documents and thus the judgments relied by the petitioner is not applicable in the instant case and the Ld. Arbitrator has rightly relied the said documents which were marked as Exbt.