9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecting supplies of the goods, and at the same time raised an invoice dated 6.3.1997 for ₹ 1,49,866.17 which contained condition No. 4. The inclusion of terms and conditions at the back of the invoice, unilaterally issued by the Respondent while effecting delivery of the goods in terms of the Petitioner's purchase order, would not bind the Petitioner. The purchase order itself made it clear that the Petitioner did not intend to refer its disputes to arbitration in respect of the resulting transaction arising out of the said purchase order. Arbitration was clearly contra indicated when the Petitioner's purchase order itself stated that Any dispute arising out of this contract shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Courts in Delhi The Respondent was well aware that the Petitioner had shunned arbitration, yet the Respondent acted in furtherance of the said purchase order by effecting supplies. The signature by the petitioners agent on the respondents copy of the invoice cannot tantamount to acceptance of the respondents so called offer for arbitration. The signatures in such a situation were evidently an acknowledgment of receipt of the goods and nothing more. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from this document. (see Hansa Industries (P) Limited v. MMTC Ltd [ 2004 (7) TMI 379 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI] . Thus, the Arbitrator clearly erred in treating 16.1.2000 as the date of commencement of limitation. In view of the provisions contained in The Limitation Act, and the authorities cited, I find no force in the contention of the Respondent that the claim before the Arbitrator was within the period of Limitation. The said 'C' Form does not constitute an acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act and the Arbitrator misapplied the law on this aspect as well. I, Therefore, set aside the impugned award as being contrary to Public Policy of India. - Vipin Sanghi, J. For the Appellant/Petitioner/plaintiff: Pradeep Dewan and Sumit Goyal, Advs For the Respondents/Defendant: Tiger Singh and Peeyosh Kalra, Advs. JUDGMENT Vipin Sanghi, J. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND FACTS. 1. This petition has been filed by M/s Taipack Ltd. under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (The Act) challenging the award dated 14.8.2001 made by sole arbitrator Shri Krishan Lal Aneja in claim No. 2000-01 titled Ram Kishor Nagar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent vide its replies dated 5.4.1999 and 25.10.1999. However, 'C' forms were issued to the respondent for a total value of ₹ 6,25,250.50 on 6.1.2000. 9. Thereafter, on 20.1.2001 a notice of the claim filed by the respondent before the Arbitrator appointed by Paper Merchants Association was received by the Petitioner. 10. The Petitioner entered appearance and raised its objections, as aforesaid, before the Arbitrator. The same, however, came to be rejected by the impugned award, and the arbitrator proceeded to allow the Respondent's claim to the extent of ₹ 24,89,898/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the award till realisation. 11. The Paper Merchants Association (Regd.) is stated to be a registered association, and its Constitution and Regulations as amended up to 30.11.2000 has been filed on record by the Respondent. Regulation XXX thereof is relied upon by the respondents, and the same, in so far as it is relevant reads as follows: XXX. Rules for Arbitration Cases framed by the Executive Committee under Rule XVI(15) of the Constitution Regulation. 1. In regard to the Aims and Objects of the Paper Mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ording to the learned Arbitrator, an arbitration agreement existed between the parties in relation to their commercial transactions and he had jurisdiction to arbitrate the same. 14. The issue that arises for consideration is whether there was an existing and enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties, to refer their disputes in relation to the contract in question to Arbitration by the Paper Merchants Association (Regd.). 15. Arbitration agreement means an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen, or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. It may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement. An arbitration agreement has necessarily to be in writing. It may be contained, inter alia, in a document signed by the parties, or in an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or any other means of telecommunication, which provide a record of the agreement. 16. In the present case, there is no arbitration agreement which could be said to be 'contained in a document signed by the parties'. [See Section 7(4)(a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner had shunned arbitration, yet the Respondent acted in furtherance of the said purchase order by effecting supplies. 19. On the other hand, there were hardly any further steps required to be taken by the Petitioner when the Respondent effected supplies and sent its invoice. The supplies having been effected, there was no other step required to be taken by the Petitioner, by which it could be inferred that the Petitioner consented to the conditions contained on the reverse of the Respondents invoice. The making of the payment by the Petitioner for the supplies effected by the Respondent cannot be considered to be a step taken by the Petitioner to indicate its acceptance of the conditions mentioned by the Respondents on the reverse of the invoice. This is so, because the Petitioner was, in any case, obliged to make payments for the supplies received by it in accordance with its purchase order. 20. The signature by the petitioners agent on the respondents copy of the invoice cannot tantamount to acceptance of the respondents so called offer for arbitration. The signatures in such a situation were evidently an acknowledgment of receipt of the goods and nothing more. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transaction was completed, i.e., when the Central Sales Tax, 'C' Form, was delivered to the Respondent by the Petitioner i.e. on 16.1.2000. In the alternative, the Arbitrator also treated the 'C' Form as an acknowledgment and held the claim as within limitation. 23. The Petitioner assails the aforesaid conclusion on the ground that suits for recovery of price of goods sold under a contract are governed by Articles 14 15 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act which prescribes the starting point of limitation as date on which the goods are delivered where no fixed period of credit is agreed upon, or where it is so fixed, on expiry of the said term respectively. The Purchase Order dated 13.2.1997 clearly stipulates that the payment was to be made in 90 days of the date of dispatch of goods. There is no averment in the claim petition that any goods were supplied beyond 31.7.1997 (the principal amount claimed before the Arbitrator was the total claimed to be outstanding as on the said date). 24. Thus, time began to run in this case not later than 31-7-97 (or 90 days thereafter at the latest) which date was not denied by the Respondent No. 1 in his rejoinder fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... companied by a promise to pay either expressly or even by implication. The statement on which a plea of acknowledge is based must relate to a present subsisting liability though the exact nature or the specific character of the said liability may not be indicated in words. Words used in the acknowledgment must, however, indicate the existence of jural relationship between the parties such as that of debtor and creditor, and it must appear that the statement is made with the intention to admit such jural relationship. Such intention can be inferred by implication from the nature of the admission, and need not be expressed in words. If the statement is fairly clear then the intention to admit jural relationship may be implied from it. The admission in question need not be express but must be made in circumstances and in words from which the court can reasonably infer that the person making the admission intended to refer to a subsisting liability as at the date of the statement. In construing words used in the statements made in writing on which a plea of acknowledgement rests oral evidence has been expressly excluded but surrounding circumstances can always be considered. Stated gen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
