9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral plea cannot be read as submitting that the amendment dated 4.9.1986 applied to the contract between the parties and that in view of the amended arbitration clause the unreasoned award was bad. In the objection petition there is a vague and general plea raised that rejecting the claims forming subject matter of cross objection and allowing the claim of the appellant without assigning any reason was bad. Such an omnibus and general plea cannot be read as submitting that the amendment dated 4.9.1986 applied to the contract between the parties and that in view of the amended arbitration clause the unreasoned award was bad. Appeal allowed. - Appeal (civil) 3364 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 7-5-2002 - R.C. Lahoti B.N. Agrawal, JJ. JUDGMENT R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. In response to a Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) issues by the respondent on 12.9.1984, the appellant submitted the tender based on the tender document issued by the respondents. The tender submitted by the appellant was accepted. On 22.2.1985, the appellant signed a letter to the following effect:- (GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT - IAFW-2249) (1976 PRINT) LUMP SUM CONTRACT FOR IAFW-2159 TERM C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... If the value of the claims or counter claims in an arbitration reference exceeds ₹ 1 lakh the arbitration shall given reasons for the award. 1978 2. Sanction of the Government is also accorded for incorporation of the above mentioned amendment at the appropriate place in the earlier prints of IAFW 2249. 3. This amendment shall come into effect from 3.10.1986. 5. Disputes arose between the parties leading to cancellation of contract by the respondents on 3.11.1987 and again on 4.4.1990. On 31.5.1991, the respondents appointed a Senior Engineer Officer as the sole arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration agreement. On 28.9.1995, the arbitrator published his award allowing the appellant's claim to the extent of ₹ 80,000/- only and rejecting the respondents' counter claim. The award was made a rule of the court by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. In an appeal preferred by the respondents, the decree passed by the learned Single Judge has been set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court which has also directed the award to be set aside and remitted back ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tance letter, either expressly or by necessary implication, to spell out the appellant having authorized the respondents to carry out modifications in the terms and conditions of the contract otherwise than by mutual agreement and to hold the appellant bound by such modifications though not consented to by him and though not even brought to his knowledge. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents has place forceful reliance on a single bench decision of Calcutta High Court in Benode Behary Roy v. The General Assurance Society Ltd., , as also on a few other authorities. Benode Behary Roy's case (supra) related to a service dispute. The plaintiff took up an employment with the respondent company the bye-laws whereof provided for the release of gratuity on retirement. Subsequently the company amended the bye-laws and provision for gratuity was deleted. The plaintiff laid a claim for gratuity submitting that on the date of plaintiff's entering into contract of employment with the company there was a provision for gratuity and the bye-laws could not have been amended without the consent of the plaintiff so as to take away his right to gratuity. The learned single ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mutual agreement and to bind itself by such variations. The arbitration clause is contained in the contract entered into between the parties. Its terms could not have been varied except by mutual agreement. Moreover the amendment dated 4.9.1986 itself provides for its coming into effect from 3.10.1986, i.e. on 30th day after the date of the amendment. That amendment clearly cannot have any relevance for interpreting the arbitration clause contained in the contract entered into between the parties much before the date of amendment coming into effect. 11. There are several other factors which preclude the respondents from urging such a plea. The reference to arbitrator does not suggest an obligation having been cast on the arbitrator to give reasons for the award. Such a plea, as has been urged in this Court, was not taken by the respondents before the arbitrator. Even in the objections filed in the court the validity of the award has not been specifically questioned on the ground of its having been given in breach of any obligation of arbitrator to give reasons as spelled out by the arbitration clause. The judgment of the learned single Judge does not show such a plea having bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
