Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2537 (HP)

Sunil Kanotra v. Indian Oil Corpn.

2016-12-02

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. When the case was taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for the respondents, questioned the very maintainability of the objections against the award of the Arbitrator. He drew my attention to decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pooran Chand Nangia vs. National Fertilizers Ltd; (2003) 8 SCC 245, wherein it has been held that once the person concerned/contractor has received the amount, which was due to him under the award and thereby submitted to the award unequivocally and accepted the same without reservation, it is not open to him to challenge the same. If he desired to challenge the award, he should have reserved the right to do so. The relevant observation reads thus: “[3] So far as the first question is concerned, it is not disputed that the appellant had received the money which was due to him under the award and once the appellant had submitted to the award unequivocally and without reservation, it is not open to him to challenge the award. We have looked into the record and find that the appellant had submitted unequivocally to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. He also accepted the awarded amount without any reservation. Had the appellant desired to challenge the award, he could have reserved his right to do so, but no such reservation was made in the letters sent by him. In this view of the matter, there remains no manner of doubt about the fact that the appellant had submitted to the award and it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to challenge the award. For these reasons, we reject the first argument of the learned counsel for the appellant.” 2. In the instant case also, the parties are ad idem that the petitioner had received the entire amount before filing the instant petition/objections and has not reserved his right to challenge the award. Therefore, in such circumstances, he cannot be permitted to agitate that he is entitled to the claims, which have been disallowed by the Arbitrator after having accepted the money due under the award without demur or protest at the relevant time. 3. Therefore, in such circumstances, he cannot be permitted to agitate that he is entitled to the claims, which have been disallowed by the Arbitrator after having accepted the money due under the award without demur or protest at the relevant time. 3. In the given circumstances and following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pooran Chand Nangia’s case (supra), the instant application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is clearly not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.