Court by its Order dated 16th June, 1988 issued a direction to the Managing Director of the Corporation to appoint an arbitrator in terms of Clause XX of the agreement within six weeks from the date of companymunication of the order.
5,62,522.70 p. was rejected.
Corporation being aggrieved filed objections against the award before the High Court which were rejected.
Contention of the Corporation that the arbitrator companyld number make an award regarding item which was specifically excluded from the purview of arbitration Clause XX and that by doing so the arbitrator had acted in excess of his jurisdiction to that extent was rejected.
The direction was given in the following terms Court Order in terms of prayer a of the petition.
Facts Respondent was appointed as a handling and transport companytractor on 14th June, 1979.
All disputes in the petition particularly the disputes mentioned in para 24 thereof be referred to the Arbitrator to the appointed by the Managing Director.
On 4th January, 1980 respondent addressed a letter to the Managing Director of the Corporation requesting him to refer the disputes which had arisen between the parties for arbitration.
The claimant will be entitled to claim interest before the Honble Court on the sum awarded from the date of publication of the award till such time as the Honble Court will deem fit and proper.
Let it appear marked to be mentioned 8 weeks hence.
Other companytentions raised by the Corporation were also rejected.
1,68,500/ One lakh sixty eight thousand five hundred rupees only deducted by the respondent from the claimants pending bills on account of demurrage and wharfage charges.
3,21,870/ for running of trucks empty from Howrah siding to Howrah I and Howrah II for empty tare?
The relevant portion of the Clause XX is as under All disputes and difference arising out of or in any way touching or companycerning this agreement whatsoever except as to any matter the decision of which is expressly provided for in the companytract shall be referred to the sole arbitration of any person appointed by the Managing Director of the Food Corporation of India.
Since numberarbitrator was appointed to resolve the dispute, he filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for short the Act in the High Court on the original side, with a prayer to issue a direction to the Managing Director of the Corporation to appoint an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration Clause XX of the agreement entered between the parties.
Is the claimant entitled to get refund of Rs.
The decision of the Regional Manager in this regard shall be final and binding on the companytractors.
Aggrieved against the order of the High Court the present appeal has been filed.
1,92,873.10 paise towards price of wheat and rice delivered in excess to the respondent?
Is the claimant entitled to refund of Rs.
Is he claimant entitled to Rs.
Claim made by the Corporation for the sum of Rs.
5,61,522.70 paise on account of payment made towards demurrage and wharfage charges?
89,743.34 paise deduced for other purposes?
67,149.65 paise deducted for transit loss?
Is the claimant entitled to refund of Rs.
Is the FCI entitled to Rs.
The sole arbitrator by a speaking and detailed order gave the award in the following terms HELD that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.
Is the claimant entitled to Rs.
The Managing Director, Food Corporation of India is directed to appoint an arbitrator in terms of Clause 20 of the agreement within six weeks from the date of companymunication of the order.
All parties including Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and the proposed Arbitrator to act on a signed companyy of the minutes of the Order on the usual undertaking.
Is the claimant entitled to interest 18 per annum from the respective due dates of the bills till payment on the awarded sums?
5,62,522.70 p. on account of payment made towards demurrage and wharfage charges.
Corporation also claimed a sum of Rs.
4,87,318.54 paise Four lakhs fifty seven thousand and three hundred eighteen rupees and paise fifty four only from the respondent on account of handling and transport bills, and refund of Rs.
Respondent raised certain claims on the basis of which the following issues were framed.
Based on the claim of the companytending parties the arbitrator framed the following issues Is the claim of the claimant barred by limitation?
Is the claimant entitled to a sum of Rs.
1,68,500/ deducted on account of demurrage and wharfage charges?
67,149.65 paise Sixty seven thousand one hundred forty nine rupees and paise sixty five only deducted by the respondent from the claimants pending bills towards transit loss and refund of Rs.
BHAN, J. Food Corporation of India for short the Corporation has filed this appeal against the Division Bench judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta whereby and where under the High Court has upheld the award made by the arbitrator appointed under the directions of the Court.
