ORDER
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. In this suit under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the Award dated 10.9.87 was filed in this Court on 14.3.1988. The Award declined to grant any part of the petitioner’s claim. On 20.1.1989, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed objections (I.A. 1593/89) to the Award dated 10.9.87. The main dispute relates to the supply of EQUIPMENT CAMAOUFLAGE NETS by the petitioner to the defendants. The original Contract stipulated that 10,000 nets were to be supplied by the petitioner by 28th February, 1981 to the respondents. It is not in dispute that upto the 28th February, 1981, 4,009 nets were delivered and the payment therefor has been made. Prior to the expiry of the period of supply, an application (Ex. P-10) for extension of time to supply the remaining nets was moved by the petitioner on 26.2.1981. There is nothing on record in writing to show that the request for extension of time is granted. The petitioner’s case is that pursuant to letter dated 6.5.1981, Ex. P-17, a Meeting was held on 12.5.1981 where an oral assurance was given by Col. Chander Prakash to the petitioner’s representative to extend the period of delivery and the petitioner was advised to be ready to offer the balance stores. The Award dated 10.9.87 deals with these issues in Paras 16 & 17 in the following terms:
“16. Another important question with regard to the letter sent by Co. Chandra Prakash (vide Ex. P-17) wherein he has asked the representative of the claimant to be present in the meeting on 12.5.81. The learned counsel for the respondent had contended to say that Col. Chandra Prakash was not competent to give any promise or assurance and as provided under article 299 of the Constitution oral promises are not binding on the parties. Moreover, DDOS is alone competent to hold any meeting with the representative of the claimants. In that connection, PW-1 has stated that he was present in the meeting which was presided over by Col. Chandra Prakash wherein a promise was given that D.P. would be extended, but the promise has not been reflected in any of the reply letters subsequently sent by the respondent. In this case claimants have been continuously requesting the respondent to extend D.P. and withdraw the cancellation letter (Ex. P-19) in their letters vide Exs. P-21 to P-26. Even though PW-1 has spoken about his presence in the meeting, the respondent had denied the meeting on the ground that there is no mention of the said meeting in any files. No minutes have been put forth by the claimants and as such there is no adequate proof to show that any promise had been given by Col. Chander Prakash and as to what happened in the meeting is not clear. Therefore, that fact has not been proved and particularly on the face of the stand taken by the respondent that Col. Chander Prakash was not competent nor he conducted any meeting to find out the position regarding the supplies. In the letter (Ex. P-17) Col. Chander Prakash has not signed it for and on behalf of the President of India which would throw doubt about competency and whereas in the other correspondence all the letters were signed by other officers for and on behalf of the President of India. It is very much required as provided under Article 77 of the Constitution of India.
17. The learned counsel for the claimants has drawn my attention to the relevant Clauses wherein the respondent was bound to extend D/P when the circumstances had warranted. The claimants in the instant case had chosen to supply the materials in four instalments and when the last instalment was about to be supplied, the D/P had expired and request was made continuously for extension of D/P so that despatch of the stores could be made. Grant of extension of D/P is purely the discretion of the purchaser. If at all there is any clause, it is an enabling clause according to which he would exercise his discretion and grant extension of time. Therefore, it is not a mandatory provision according to which D/P should be extended. Moreover, reasons were not assigned by the claimants as to how they could not supply the balance stores (5991 nets) before the expiry of D/P. It is true that the respondent had taken a stand the specifications had been changed sometime in March, 1981 but that is not a ground to attribute any motive to the respondent. The learned counsel for the claimants had been laying emphasis on the fact that due to the change in the specifications, the respondent had not extended the D/P. It would appear that the decision to change the specifications was taken in March, 1981 which is after the expiry of D/P. In such circumstances, the respondent was within his rights to take decision either to extend D/P or not to extend the D/P according to the circumstances convenient to him. When once the claimants had failed to supply the stores before D/P it amounts to committing breach of the terms of the contract and consequential steps would follow.”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has objected to the findings of Award dated 10.9.87 and submitted that the respondents were not justified in keeping back Col. Chander Prakash who could not be cross examined so as to prove the petitioner’s claim of an oral assurance for extension of time. Even if it is assumed that Col. Chander Prakash had come to witness box and even supported the case of the petitioner even that would not have come to the aid of the petitioner because of the mandate of Article 299 read with Article 77 of the Constitution by which contracts are required to be in writing. The Award has also rightly found that the extension of time sought by the petitioner to complete the supply of the contracted goods was a matter of discretion and the exension of time when sought was not mandatory.
3. In view of the above, there are no merits in the objections which are accordingly dismissed. The Award dated 10.9.87 is made a rule of the Court. There shall be no orders as to costs.
4. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.