Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 249 (PNJ)

Mohd. Ayyub v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd

2006-02-01

HEMANT GUPTA

body2006
Judgment 1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 12.8.1997, passed by the learned trial Court, whereby an application for revoking the authority of an Arbitrator appointed by respondent no.1 in terms of the agreement between the parties, was declined. 2. The petitioners have entered into an agreement for purchase of food crops for the period 1.4.1983 to 31.3.1997. It is the case of the petitioner that the title of respondent no.1 in the orchard was defective and there was litigation, therefore, the petitioner withdrew their labourers as they have been involved in criminal cases. Since respondent no.1 demanded balance payment, the same was objected to by the petitioner as not payable. Therefore, the dispute between the parties was earlier referred to Shri Shyam Lal Garg, Advocate and subsequently to Shri B. S. Anand, advocate. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that as the arbitrator has been appointed unilaterally by respondent no.1, therefore, the authority of the arbitrator so appointed by respondent no.1 be revoked. Clause 18 of the agreement contained the arbitration clause, which reads as under:- "18. Arbitration:- That should any dispute arises between the parties to this agreement, regarding breach of terms and conditions of this agreement, the same shall be referred to the General Manager, Ballarpur industries Ltd. Unit Shree Gopal, Yamuna Nagar, or to any person named by him for arbitration and the award thus given by the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties. " 4 A perusal of the said clause would leave no manner of doubt that the disputes between the parties were required to be referred to the general Manager of respondent no.1 or to any person named by him for arbitration. Therefore, the General Manager of respondent no.1 could act as an arbitrator on the strength of the agreement between the parties or could nominate any other person for arbitration. Hence, the appointment of shri B. S. Anand, Advocate, as an arbitrator cannot be said to be beyond the terms of the agreement between the parties. It may further be noticed that Shri B. S. Anand has since given his award and, therefore, it shall be open to the petitioner to raise objections to the said award in terms of section 30 of the Act. 5. It may further be noticed that Shri B. S. Anand has since given his award and, therefore, it shall be open to the petitioner to raise objections to the said award in terms of section 30 of the Act. 5. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.