Union of India v. M/S Jayaswals Neco & Ltd.

1. The appellant - Union of India - purports to be aggrieved by an order made in execution proceedings by the learned Single Judge on 17.07.2013.

2. The brief facts are that on account of short closing of contract which required supply of SGCI inserts, the respondent/claimant demanded payment of damages from the appellant - Union Government. The Arbitrator upheld the claim in his Award dated 09.10.2002. The Union, feeling aggrieved, preferred objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; they were dismissed on 14.12.2005. The Union Government appealed 2013:DHC:7982-DB unsuccessfully against that judgment; likewise their attempt to seek leave to appeal from the Supreme Court also failed. The respondent/decree holder sought to execute the Award stating that the Award/decree remained unsatisfied and that the Union had to pay Rs.6.[8] per insert, being the amount agreed in terms of the contract dated 18.06.1999 in respect of 98,219 units.

3. The learned Single Judge recorded the Union Government's, contentions that the differential rate was Rs.3.22 per piece and not Rs.6.[8] per piece. The impugned order would show that the learned Judge on an application of mind, accepted the Union's contentions and held that the number of differential inserts were not 98,219 but in fact 63,219. However, as regards the rate, the Union Government's contentions were rejected; the Review Petition too met with the same fate.

4. Mr. R.V. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon Annexure R-6 to the reply fded by the Union Government in execution proceedings and contends that based upon the contents of the contract, the difference worked out to Rs.3.22 per piece. He sought to highlight the fact that the Award did not indicate acceptance of the claim for Rs.6.[8] and that the Union even at that stage had mentioned that the differential was Rs.3.22 per insert.

5. This Court is not persuaded by the appellant's submissions. The preceding history of this case would show that this and every other conceivable objection was taken in issue under Section 34 proceedings and subsequently in appeal to the Division Bench and further in SLP before the Supreme Court. X,, r-

6. It is evident that aside from the self seeking allegations that the differential for the inserts was Rs.3.22 per unit, there is no independent or objective material. In these circumstances, the Court is unable to agree with the appellants that the impugned order - made in the execution proceedings is in error of law. This Court is conscious of the fact that in execution proceedings, the jurisdiction is limited and it cannot in any way add to or subtract from the decree made in the original substantive proceedings.

7. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal; the same is accordingly dismissed along with the pending applications.

S. IMVINDl^ BHAT, J

6^jmi waziri, j