JUDGMENT
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. Objections have been filed by the respondent under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Arbitration Act,1940 to the award dated 20.9.1990 published by Shri R.N. Tankha, Sole Arbitrator appointed to decide the disputes and differences between the parties.
2. When the award was published, petitioner filed the suit above captioned being a petition under Section 14 read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act,1940 praying that the arbitrator be directed to file the award in this Court and the same be made a rule of the Court.
3. On receipt of the award from the learned arbitrator, notice of filing of the award was issued to th parties. Respondent has filed objections to the award by and under IA. No. 2729/91.
4. It is rather unfortunate that these proceedings have been remained pending in this Court for over 14 years. On 17.1.2005, counsel for the objector sought adjournment. Noting that the matter had remained pending for over 14 years, I declined adjournment but gave two weeks time to the objector to file written submissions. In my order of 17.1.2005, I had made it clear that written submissions should be handed over in Court. Till date, no written submissions have been filed.
5. Reason why I had declined oral hearing was that order sheet reveals that the objector kept on seeking adjournment which were being granted, rather liberally by this Court. I had noted two documents in the record of the arbitrator, which in my opinion conclude the issue against the objector.
6. Dispute between the parties surfaced when the dealership of the objector was revoked by the petitioner as it was found that the objector was indulging in malpractices. Spurious gas cylinders were being put into circulation by the objector, 30 of which came to be detected.
7. Petitioner had raised a dispute pertaining to cancellation of dealership as also certain allied disputes.
8. After pleadings were concluded and documents were filed before the learned arbitrator, matter was posted for 30.7.1990. Date fixed was for the objector to examine the witness, if any.
9. Objector was being represented by a counsel before the arbitrator. On 30.7.1990, date fixed for recording of evidence, written submission was handed over to the learned arbitrator, duly signed by the objector and his counsel. Written submission which is at page 163 to164 of the record of arbitration reads as under :
“BEFORE SHRI R.N.TANKHA
SOLE ARBITRAtor
IN THE MATTER OF DISPUTES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SHRI MOHINDER PAL, S/O. SHRI BRAT PAL, SOLE PROPERtor, M/S.MINI GAS, 9, LAL MARKET, ASHOK VIHAR, PHASE-II, NEW DELHI-52.
AND
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
(A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE)
JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING, 11TH FLOOR, TOWER I, CANNAUGHT CIRCUS NEW DELHI
ARISING OUT OF THE TERMINATION OF DEALERSHIP AGREEMENT DATED 6TH JANUARY 1984
————————————-
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT
————————————–
Sir,
I was appointed LPG dealer by the Company vide Agreement dated 6.1.1984. That certain disputes arose and were referred to your goodself for adjudication arising out of termination of dealership agreement terminated vide letter dated 15.7.89. The allegation of the HPCL was that that the Claimant sent 30 spurious cylinders to the filling plant through Truck No. DEL 1662 unauthorisedly.
That the claimant has already deposited the cost of 30 spurious cylinders to the Company. However, irrespective of the fact that the alleged 30 cylinders were spurious or not, the claimant has deposited the amount with the HPCL.
The claimant admits the allegations levelled against him by the Corporation irrespective of the merits of the case. I unequivocally and unconditionally submit to the learned Arbitrator that I admit that own all the charges levelled against me and pray for lenient view and sympathetic consideration particularly, in view of myself being physically handicapped, and I take this opportunity to further undertake and assure the Arbitrator and through the Arbitrator the Respondent Corporation that I shall not allow any of such things to happen in future in my dealership. I shall furnish any undertaking to this effect to the Respondent Corporation as and when in any manner ordered by the learned arbitrator and shall also hand over whatever property and records of the Corporation is with me and shall pay all costs and charges whatever found due and payable by me.
MOHINDER PAL
CLAIMANT”
10. In view of the written submission above, learned arbitrator recorded the following order :
“Record of proceedings held on 30th July 1990
The advocate for the claimant stated that he did not wish to proceed with the examination of any of the witnesses as had been decided earlier. He stated that he would like to place on record the admission of the offence, i.e. spurious cylinders being sent to the plant and on account of the admission, he asked for a lenient and sympathetic view to be taken by the Arbitrator. With the dealership being restored to him on this ground and with the assurance that no further offence will take place, he would not pursue his other claims.
Respondent HPC did not have any further statement to make as no witnesses were subjected to examination by the claimant. HPC therefore maintained its various claims for damages/compensations etc.
Claimant gave written submission which has been taken on record.
Sd/-
R.N.Tankha
Sole Arbitrator”
11. In the objections filed, petitioner has taken a plea that the confession was obtained by him as a result of inducement by officers of the petitioner and the arbitrator. It is averred in the petition that objector was induced with a promise that his dealership would be restored and he would be treated lightly by the arbitrator.
12. I had declined adjournment in view of the objections taken, which to my mind, are frivolous in view of the written submission of the objector and the order passed thereon on 30.7.1990.
13. Objector has not laid any basis from which even a prima facie inference of allurement can be drawn.
14. On the contrary, from the record of arbitration, it has to be noted that parties were conscious of the gravity of the charge against the objector. That is why, the learned arbitrator gave an opportunity to the objector to lead oral evidence. It is unbelievable that a public sector undertaking would agree to let of a dealer who indulges in malpractice with a light penalty. It has to be kept in mind that the objector was a dealer in respect of LPG gas cylinders, to be supplied to consumers.
15. From the record or arbitration, I find that numerous letters were addressed by HPCL to the objector drawing attention to the complaints from the consumers, complaints being of over charging, delayed supply and short supply.
16. The complaints which are actually in the nature of warning to the objector from HPCL were acknowledged and replied by the objector. Exchange of correspondence is Ex.R-2(1) to R-2(16).
17. Since the objector continued with the malpractice and circulation of spurious gas cylinders was detected, on 1.6.1989 (Ex.R-5), show cause notice was issued to him as to why his dealership be not cancelled. Objector replied vide Ex.R-6 dated 12.6.1989. Dealership was cancelled vide letter dated 15.7.1989, Ex.R-7.
18. Learned arbitrator has noted exchange of correspondence aforesaid and notwithstanding the confession of the objector has pronounced a detailed reasoned award dealing with the issue on merits in the light of documentary evidence. Award runs into 18 pages.
19. The award has dealt with the issues between the parties in the context of evidence, being letters noted above.
20. Objector has not filed any written submission. Objector did not make any oral submissions. I have independently considered the record. I find no merits in the objections which are dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/-.
CS(OS) No. 3328/90
1. In view of dismissal of IA. No. 2729/91, award dated 20.9.1990, published by Shri R.N.Tankha, sole arbitrator is made a rule of the Court. Petitioner would be entitled to interest on the awarded sum at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of decree till date of realization.