Through: Ms. Ansuya Salwan, Advocate with Ms. Neha Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Kunal Kohli, Advocate v. M/S. BEEKAY PESTICIDES PVT. LTD

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. The challenge by means of this First Appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), is to the impugned order of the trial Court dated 19.2.1996 whereby the objections of the appellant under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act were dismissed. The admitted facts are that though the respondent committed 2011:DHC:4572 a breach of contract in supply of the Aldrin/Aldrex 30% H.C. as per ISI specification 1307-1988, however, when the risk and cost tender was issued by the appellant, the appellant in fact was able to procure the material at a lower price.

2. A mere breach of contract does not entitle a person to damages unless loss has been caused. This is a settled proposition of law and one such judgment of the Supreme Court is the judgment in case of Maula Bux Vs. UOI, 1969 (2) SCC 554. Accordingly, the Arbitrator allowed certain claims of the contractor towards refund of the security deposit and which was challenged by means of an objection petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act and which has been dismissed by the impugned order. There is therefore no illegality or perversity in the impugned order for this Court to interfere with the impugned order.

3. Before concluding the matter, I may note that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 9.2.1998 the matter was referred back to the Arbitrator for giving reasons and the Arbitrator has now also given additional reasons in support of the Award by means of a letter to the

4. The scope of hearing objections to an Award is limited. If the scope of hearing objections to an Award is limited, then, the scope of hearing of an appeal against the order dismissing the objections has to be further limited. In view of the fact that the appellant was caused no loss on account of breach of contract by the contractor, the Award has rightly been passed by directing refund of the security deposit.

5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Lower Court record be sent back.

SEPTEMBER 06, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne