1969 (2) TMI 177 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for setting aside the decree dated November 25, 1968.
2. Application for setting aside the Award dated June 4, 1968.
3. Service of notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
4. Applicability of Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code.
5. Court's inherent jurisdiction to recall orders or decrees.
6. Sufficient cause for delay in filing the application under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act.
7. Misconduct by arbitrators in refusing the counterclaim.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Setting Aside the Decree Dated November 25, 1968:
The petitioner sought to set aside the decree dated November 25, 1968, which was passed based on an award made by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The petitioner argued that the decree was passed ex parte and there was sufficient cause for non-appearance. However, the court found that the judgment and decree passed on the award were not ex parte.

2. Application for Setting Aside the Award Dated June 4, 1968:
The petitioner also sought to set aside the award dated June 4, 1968, claiming that they could not take effective steps to challenge the award due to disruptions caused by their employees. The court noted that the petitioner did not take timely steps to access necessary documents and did not show sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application.

3. Service of Notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940:
The court confirmed that notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act was duly served on the petitioner. The petitioner was aware of the notice but failed to take timely action to challenge the award. The court emphasized that no application for setting aside the award was made or pending when the judgment and decree were passed.

4. Applicability of Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code:
The court clarified that Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows for setting aside an ex parte decree, does not apply to proceedings under the Arbitration Act. The rule is applicable only to suits, not to arbitration award cases. The court cited precedents to support this interpretation.

5. Court's Inherent Jurisdiction to Recall Orders or Decrees:
The court acknowledged that it has inherent jurisdiction to recall orders or decrees passed irregularly under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. However, in this case, the court found no irregularity in the passing of the judgment and decree. The requirements of Section 17 were complied with, as notice was served, and the time to make an application for setting aside the award had expired.

6. Sufficient Cause for Delay in Filing the Application under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act:
The court examined whether the petitioner showed sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application. The petitioner argued that disruptions by their employees prevented them from accessing necessary documents. However, the court found that the petitioner did not take timely steps to mitigate the situation, such as applying to the Chief Presidency Magistrate earlier. The court concluded that the petitioner did not show sufficient cause for the delay.

7. Misconduct by Arbitrators in Refusing the Counterclaim:
The petitioner alleged that the arbitrators misconducted themselves by refusing to allow a counterclaim for the sum of Rs. 8301.61. The court examined the terms of the contract and found that the contract stipulated that any increase or decrease in import duty would be on the buyer's account. The court concluded that the arbitrators merely construed the contract and did not misconduct themselves. The court found no basis for the petitioner's claim that the arbitrators should have taken evidence of an agreement outside the contract.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the application for setting aside the decree and the award, finding no sufficient cause for the delay and no misconduct by the arbitrators. The court also emphasized that the judgment and decree were not passed ex parte and that the requirements of Section 17 of the Arbitration Act were complied with. The application was dismissed with costs.