M. G., Gupta and K. R. Nagaraja, for the appellant.
In the result, after deducting the claim allowed to the appellant company, the companypany was held liable to pay to the Government Rs.
L. Agarwal, K. L. Mehta, S. K. Mehta, P. N. Chadda.
34,70,226.50 P. The award having been filed by the umpire in the Court of the, District Judge, Delhi and the Government of India having thereupon applied for a decree in term of the award, the companypany applied to the Court for setting aside the award urging several grounds for so doing.
M. Singhvi, Badri Dass Sharma and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 19, 1963 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench, at Delhi in F.A.0.
The Judgment of the Court has delivered by Shelat, J. By this appeal, under special leave, the appellantcompany challenges the companyrectness of the judgment of the High Court of Punjab, dated February 19, 1963 refusing to set aside an umpires award, dated March 22, 1958.
The Union of India also filed certain companys objections.
111 a , and further held that the companynter claims 11, IV, V and VI made by the Government were number companyered by the reference, and companysequently, the umpire had numberjurisdiction to go into them.
At the end of the arbitration, the umpire, by his said award, disallowed all the claims made by the companypany, except one for which he awarded RS.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The award was in respect of certain disputes between the companypany and the Union of India in the matter of disposals of the United States surplus war materials left by the Government of the U.S.A. at the end of the last World War.
that the companyts awarded to the Government were altogether disproportionate.
These surplus materials, called the U.S. Surplus Stores, companysisted of vehicles and other stores.
Upon every and any such reference, the assessment of the companyts incidental to the reference and award respectively shall be in the discretion of the arbitrators, or in the event of their number agreeing, of the Umpire appointed by them.
These companytracts of sale were subject to the General Conditions of Contract Form Con.
The disputes were crystallized into nine claims by the appellant companypany totalling Ks.
It was said that these were sold to the companypany by the Director General, Disposals through companyrespondence and sale notes.
13 of these General Condi tions provided that In the event of any question or dispute arising under these companyditions or any special companyditions of companytract or in companynection with this companytract the same shall be referred to the award of an arbitrator to be numberinated by the Director General and an arbitrator to be numberinated by the companytractor, or in the 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 .
6,73,34,500/ , and several companynterclaims by the Government of India.
36,23,682.50 P. and companyts amounting to Rs.
Appeal No.
5,40,544/ .
Consequently, the companypany was number entitled to remove the said 291 vehicles which it did, much less companyld the companypany claim companypensation for 256 vehicles which it alleged were number delivered to it.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the companyrt the companypany filed an appeal before the High Court.
VI for the price of these 256 undelivered vehicles.
2418 of 1966.
123 D of 1961.
Disputes having arisen between the parties both as regards the companytents and the quantity of the vehicles delivered under the companytracts, they were referred, in the first instance, to two arbitrators numberinated by the parties, and ultimately to an umpire.
6,94,000/ and held, in respect of the companynter claims filed by the Government of India, that the appellant company was liable to pay to the Government in all Rs.
The District Judge by an elaborate judgment declined to set aside the award.
