Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 525 (PNJ)

Food Corporation of India, Hissar v. Dhani Ram

2004-05-05

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2004
JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J. (Oral) - This petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Hissar, dated 31.10.1983 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the Food Corporation of India against the order dated 15.10.1982 of the Senior Sub Judge, Hissar, holding that the appeal had not been filed by a duly authorised officer. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner-Food Corporation of India (hereinafter called the Corporation) invited tenders for appointment of contractors. The respondent, Dhani Ram, made an offer which was accepted by the Corporation. It appears that after working for some time, Dhani Ram stopped work mid-way, on which the Corporation got the work completed from its own sources. As the contract between the Corporation and Dhani Ram contained an arbitration clause, the matter was referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Sewa Singh Ahluwalia, retired District and Sessions Judge, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The respondent, Dhani Ram, appeared before the arbitrator at the initial stage, but thereafter absented himself, on which ex-parte proceedings were taken against him. The arbitrator continued with the proceedings, but due to unavoidable circumstances he could not give the award within the statutory period of four months. The Corporation thereafter moved an application under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for extension of time. This application was contested by Dhani Ram, on which the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether there is sufficient cause for extension of time ? OPP. 2. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try this application ? OPR. 3. Whether District Manager, F.C.I., Hissar has not been duly authorised or is competent to sign and file and plead on behalf of the petitioner ? OPP. 4. Relief. 3. The trial Judge under issue No. 1 held that there was no cause for extension of time. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 were, however, decided in favour of the Corporation, but on account of the finding on issue No. 1, the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by this order, the Corporation filed an appeal before the District Judge, Hisar, who relying on the judgment of this Court in Food Corporation of India v. Sardarni Baldev Kaur and others, AIR 1981 P&H 113, held that the appeal filed by the District Manager was not maintainable as he was not competent to file the same. Aggrieved by this order, the Corporation filed an appeal before the District Judge, Hisar, who relying on the judgment of this Court in Food Corporation of India v. Sardarni Baldev Kaur and others, AIR 1981 P&H 113, held that the appeal filed by the District Manager was not maintainable as he was not competent to file the same. The appeal was accordingly dismissed on this short ground without any discussion on merits. It is in these circumstances that the present petition has been filed. 4. Mr. Rajesh Garg, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to letter, Exh. P-5, issued by the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India authorising District Managers to file appeals and has argued that as the power has been delegated to the District Manager, the appeal filed by him before the District Judge was clearly maintainable. 5. I find that this aspect has been duly considered in the appellate order. In paragraph 5 of the afore-cited judgment, it is observed as under :- "As regards the question as to whether the District Manager of the Food Corporation was competent to conduct the case on behalf of the Corporation the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of order XXIX, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure which prescribe that in suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the Secretary or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case. This provision no-where empowers such an officer to conduct the case on behalf of the Corporation. In fact, only the limited power to sign and verify the pleadings has been conferred upon the officer." 6. A bare reading of Rule 1 of Order 29 of the Civil Procedure Code would reveal that the question of delegation in such cases would not arise and the principal officer of the Corporation can himself file an appeal. Admittedly the Regional Manager was himself the principal officer and he could have filed the appeal and in the light of the judgment afore-quoted, the District Manager, though authorised by the Regional Manager, could not have filed the appeal so as to make it maintainable. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.