The court’s legal analysis in this case highlights the crucial need to strike a balance between speedy resolution and ensuring both parties have a fair chance to present their case. This summary delves into the significance of providing adequate opportunity while also aiming for quick adjudications, as emphasized by various legal sections. Dive into the details of how this case navigates the intricate balance between efficiency and fairness in arbitration.
Facts
- Appellant invoked the arbitration clause from the contract agreement.
- Disputes arose leading to termination of contract by respondent due to non-performance by the appellant.
- Appellant was awarded a tender for additional washing line at Jammu Tawi Railway Station.
- Arbitrator accepted a request for further time to file affidavits by the respondent.
- Respondent failed to file affidavits on time and requested for adjournments.
- Appellant alleged breaches by the respondent for modifying the original work scope multiple times.
- Respondent filed affidavit of Senior Divisional Engineer and applied for recall of costs.
- Respondent was directed to pay 50% of arbitration fee within a month from the first hearing.
- The appellant filed the Statement of Claim on 3 May 2010.
- Various filings and adjournments occurred leading to a final ex parte award on 27 November 2010.
- The respondent objected under Section 34 of the Act, leading to dismissal initially but success on appeal due to the arbitrator’s haste and violation of natural justice principles.
- The arbitrator awarded Rs. 20,25,255/- along with interest, citing Section 31(7) of the Act.
- There was a dispute regarding the application of pre-reference and pendente lite interest in accordance with the General Conditions of the Contract.
- The appellant sought to replace the arbitrator, and Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri (Retd.) was appointed by the District Judge.
Also Read: Land Auction Dispute Resolution
Analysis
- A pragmatic and common-sense approach is essential to balance expeditious disposal and adequate opportunity to establish one’s case.
- Both parties should be treated with equality and given a full opportunity to present their case, as mandated by Section 18.
- References to Sections 24, 25, and newly enacted Section 29A emphasize the importance of quick and prompt adjudications.
- Idioms like ‘delay’ and ‘hurry’ in adjudication underline the significance of both speedy disposal and reasonable opportunity for an even-handed decision.
- The High Court found that there was unnecessary haste by the arbitrator, especially considering the respondent had filed an affidavit by way of evidence on 21 October 2010.
Also Read: Analysis of Bail Conditions in Criminal Appeal No. INSC 48/2024
Decision
- Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal, a retired Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, has been appointed as the arbitrator.
- Arbitration fee and expenses will be paid according to the schedule to the Act.
- The respondent will have the opportunity to cross-examine Paramdeep Singh (PW-1) in the proceedings.
- The respondent is required to file their affidavits as evidence within four weeks of the arbitrator starting the reference.
- The appellant will pay 50% of the fee when final arguments begin, with both parties sharing the fee and expenses equally.
- The arbitrator is given the authority to decide on the award of interest without being bound by earlier findings of the High Court.
- The civil appeal is disposed of with no costs, considering the respondent’s conduct of non-payment to the earlier arbitrator and lack of reasonable opportunity to present their case.
- The earlier arbitration award is deemed as suffering from violation of natural justice principles and lack of full opportunity, leading to its potential set aside.
Also Read: Conviction Upheld for Murder and Concealment of Body
Case Title: M/S NARINDER SINGH AND SONS Vs. UNION OF INDIA (2021 INSC 747)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006734-006734 / 2021
