Full Text
Translation output
,t '-' I 27&30 HIGH COURT OF DELHI o.M.P. 567l20LL
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Advocate VCTSUS
M/S MANPREET RICE AND GENERAL MILLS L & ANoTHER ResPondent
Through: o.M.P.570l20LL FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Advocate
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Advocate VCTSUS
M/S MANPREET RICE AND GENERAL MILLS L & ANoTHER ResPondent
Through: o.M.P.570l20LL FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Advocate
VERSUS
M/S KHALSA RICE AND GENERAL MILLS & ANOTHER ResPondent
Through:
Through:
CORAM:
HON',BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
02.08.2011 l.A. Nos.12L58 & L2L62l2OLL (exemptionl
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. o.M.p. 567/201L & O.M.P. 570/20L1
The petitioner assails the arbitral awards dated 17.03.2011 passed by
Sh. Swarup Singh, sole arbitrator, whereby the claims of the petitioner have been rejected by relying upon on an out of settlement entered o/o
A
2011:DHC:19184 l into between the petitioner and the respective respondents. The learned arbitrator has held that after the deed of settlement had been entered into, merely because the CMD had generally observed that he is not in favour of settlement, the settlement could not be brushed aside, as the said noting of the CMD is an internal matter of the petitioner. The arbitrator has observed that the petitioner has failed to disclose as to what action, if any, has been taken against the officer who had entered into the settlement. The arbitration proceedings had been got adjourned for arriving at a settlement out of the court.
Before the settlement deed was executed, the petitioner had also issued a no due certificate to the respondent which is also not in dispute. The settlement deed was never annulled by the petitioner.
The same officer had signed the contract and the settlement deed. On this basis, the learned arbitrator has relied on the settlement deed and rejected the claims of the petitioner.
Mr. Pattjoshi submits that the petitioner did not intend to enter into a settlement without the approval of the CMD of the FCl. This argument cannot be accepted because the settlement deed is unconditional. The relevant part thereof has been reproduced in the award itself. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to answer relevant question including whether any action was taken against the officer who had signed the settlement deed. lq
(t ) he Mr. Pattjoshi submits that in another similar matter, t petitioner has filed an additional affidavit explaining its conduct entering into the settlement deed. lt is not open to the petitioner in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act to lead any further evidence to assail the award. All such pleas and evidence should have been raised and placed before the arbitrator. I find no infirmity in the impugned award. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed.
VIPIN GHl, J AUGUST 02,?OLL ST tn e
02.08.2011 l.A. Nos.12L58 & L2L62l2OLL (exemptionl
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. o.M.p. 567/201L & O.M.P. 570/20L1
The petitioner assails the arbitral awards dated 17.03.2011 passed by
Sh. Swarup Singh, sole arbitrator, whereby the claims of the petitioner have been rejected by relying upon on an out of settlement entered o/o
A
2011:DHC:19184 l into between the petitioner and the respective respondents. The learned arbitrator has held that after the deed of settlement had been entered into, merely because the CMD had generally observed that he is not in favour of settlement, the settlement could not be brushed aside, as the said noting of the CMD is an internal matter of the petitioner. The arbitrator has observed that the petitioner has failed to disclose as to what action, if any, has been taken against the officer who had entered into the settlement. The arbitration proceedings had been got adjourned for arriving at a settlement out of the court.
Before the settlement deed was executed, the petitioner had also issued a no due certificate to the respondent which is also not in dispute. The settlement deed was never annulled by the petitioner.
The same officer had signed the contract and the settlement deed. On this basis, the learned arbitrator has relied on the settlement deed and rejected the claims of the petitioner.
Mr. Pattjoshi submits that the petitioner did not intend to enter into a settlement without the approval of the CMD of the FCl. This argument cannot be accepted because the settlement deed is unconditional. The relevant part thereof has been reproduced in the award itself. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to answer relevant question including whether any action was taken against the officer who had signed the settlement deed. lq
(t ) he Mr. Pattjoshi submits that in another similar matter, t petitioner has filed an additional affidavit explaining its conduct entering into the settlement deed. lt is not open to the petitioner in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act to lead any further evidence to assail the award. All such pleas and evidence should have been raised and placed before the arbitrator. I find no infirmity in the impugned award. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed.
VIPIN GHl, J AUGUST 02,?OLL ST tn e
JUDGMENT