The case of the respondent firm was that in order to companyer up possible rejection, a quantity of timber much in excess of the companytracted quantity was despatched to the companysignees and the excess quantity measuring 3,400 tons i.e. 1,70,000 cubic feet was still lying with the Lillooah companysignnee and 1,500 tons i.e. 75,000 cubic feet with the Halisahaar companysignee and had number been returned despite repeated requests.
Burma teak squares at the same rate and the companytract was accordingly amended on 13th December, 1957.
9/12/ Vet c.ft.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated October 23, 1964 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Civil Revision No.
The formal acceptance of tender companyfirming the savingram and companytaining the other terms of the companytract was issued on 13th January, 1954.
Besides the quantity of teak logs originally companytracted to be supplied, the respondent firm subsequently supplied a quantity of 1676.95 c.ft.
The petition was rejected by the Subordinate Judge by his order dated 20th April, 1964.
The companytract in question is governed by the arbitration agreement companytained in clause 21 of the form W.S.B. 133 which states as follows Arbitration In the event of any question or dispute arising under these companyditions or any special companyditions of companytract or in companynection with this companytract except as to any matters the decision of which is specially provided for by these companyditions the same shall be referred to the award of an arbitrator to be numberinated by the Purchaser and an arbitrator to be numberinated by the Contractor, or in case of the said arbitrators number agreeing then to the award of an Umpire to be ,appointed by the arbitrators in writing before proceeding on the reference and the decision of the arbitrators, or in the event of their number agreeing, of the Umpire appointed by them, shall be final and companyclusive and the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, and of the Rules thereunder and any Statutory modification thereof shall be deemed to apply to and be incorporated in this companytract.
to be delivered F.O.R. Halisahaar and Lillooah, both in West Bengal near Calcutta.
Upon every and any such reference, the assessment of the companyts incidental to the reference and award respectively shah be in the discretion of the arbitrators or in the event of their number agreeing of the Umpire appointed by them.
Including this item the appellant made a claim of Rs.
3,50.085.99 against the respondent firm out of which it recouped Rs.
1,79.366 from the sums due to the respondent firm leaving a balance of Rs.1.70,719.99.
In pursuance of the arbitration .clause the respondent firm appointed one Mr. T.R. Sharma as its arbitrator and the appellant appointed Mr. R.R. Desai, Deputy Legal Adviser, Ministry of Law, Government of India as its numberinee.
3,00,000.
1,54,541.36 on 23rd July, 1958.
the respondent firm supplied only 77,21/.89 cubic feet of timber and the companytract in respect of the unsupplied quantity was cancelled on 20th june, 1958 and that the supplied quantity was repurchased by Government from third party at a loss of Rs.
Mr. S. Bindra, a retired District Judge was appointed as the Umpire by order of the Sub Judge dated 2 8 1961.
128 of 1963 was dismissed in limine.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
73,50,000 while the appellant companytended that the respondent companymitted breach of the companytract by number supplying the stipulated quantity of timber under the companytract and as such claimed damages to the extent of Rs.
549 of 1966.
It was provided in clause 17 c of the acceptance of tender that the respondent firm was to offer the timber for inspection at its own premises at Halisahaar and Lillooah.
The companysignee was the District Controller of Stores, Eastern Railway.
Both the parties filed their respective claims before the arbitrators.
438 D of 1964.
V. Gupte and A.K. Nag, for respondents Nos.
By a savingram dated 21st December, 1953 the Union of India hereinafter called the appellant entered into a companytract of purchase of 1,01,750 cubic feet of teak logs at Rs.
1 and 2.
438 D of 1964 by which the revision petition of the appellant against the order of Shri D.R. Khanna, Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi dated 20th April, 1964 in Suit No.
The respondent firm claimed return of this quantity of timber and companypensation for its deterioration.
The respondent firm claimed a sum of Rs.
A. Seyid Muhammad and S.P. Nayar, for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J.This appeal is brought by Special leave against the judgment of the Punjab High Court in Civil Revision No.
128 of 1963 was an application by the Union of India under sections 5, 12 2 ,31 3 , 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for obtaining a declaration that the reference of the claim of the respondent firm in respect of excess quantity of timber alleged to have been delivered and certain other matters was number companyered by the arbitration agreement and for leave to revoke the authority of the Arbitrators and Umpire.
Suit No.
G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent No.
Although the delivery time was extended from time to time, upto 26th January, 1958.
