Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1486 (PNJ)

Food Corporation of Indian v. P. K. Company

2000-12-05

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a Civil Revision and has been filed by the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter called the Corporation) against the order dated 29.9.2000 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kapurthala, who dismissed the application of the petitioners under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the reasons given in paras 3 and 4 of the impugned order, which read as follows : "3. I have gone through the application, its reply and heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the defendants argued that had the tender of the plaintiff been accepted, then the clause between the parties and agreement will have to remain the same. The agreement between the parties is current and continuing and prayed that the matter may be referred to the Arbitrator. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that when the tender of the plaintiff was not accepted then there remains no agreement between the parties binding on them and prayed that the application be dismissed. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration on the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties. As per Appendix-I which comes after the Arbitration clause in the tender, the word used is that the successful tenderer. The tender of the plaintiff was not accepted by the defendants. The plaintiff got back the earnest money from the defendants by filing a writ in the Honble High Court. The Honble High Court while disposing of the writ vide order dated 6.11.1997, gave a direction to petitioner/plaintiff to file a suit in the Civil Court for claiming interest on the delayed payment. The tender of the plaintiff was not accepted. So, the plaintiff does not fall in the category of successful tenderer. So, there are no merits in the application and the same is dismissed." 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even though plaintiff M/s P.K. and Company is not a successful bidder, still there is dispute between the parties which has to be referred to the arbitration. This argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. When there is no concluded contract containing arbitration clause, how the matter can be referred to the arbitrator ? In these circumstances, the findings given by the Civil Judge (Sr. This argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. When there is no concluded contract containing arbitration clause, how the matter can be referred to the arbitrator ? In these circumstances, the findings given by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kapurthala are correct and I do not see any illegality in the same. No merit. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.