The Food Corporation of India vs Shri Sukhdev Singh

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This revision petition is filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge. Ludhiana, dated 20.10.1984 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent against the order of the learned Sub Judge, First Class, Ludhiana, dated 25.8.1982 allowing the application filed by the petitioner, namely, FCI u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act.

The petitioner invited tenders for handling transport work at its depot Mullanpur. The defendant offered his tender in the prescribed form. According to the petitioner, the tender was accepted on 7.3.1978 and the same was communicated to the respondent and since disputes had arisen in regard to the performance of the contract, the plaintiff filed an application u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act for referring the dispute to the Arbitrator in terms of the agreement between the parties. The case of the respondent-defendant is that no concluded contract was entered into between the parties and there was no communication of acceptance of this tender and, therefore, there is no question of referring the dispute to an Arbitrator. The learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Ludhiana, by his impugned order dated 25.8.1982 found that there was a concluded contract and there is valid agreement and, therefore, allowed the application filed by the petitioner to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge took the view that there was no cogent evidence to show that the acceptance of offer was communicated to the respondent and, therefore, no agreement came into existence between the parties. Hence the petitioner filed this revision petition.

On a perusal of the record, I am of the opinion that there is a concluded contract. Exhibit AW 2/3 is the letter addressed to Sukhdev Singh .from the office of the Senior Regional Manager accepting the tender of the respondent dated 25.1.1978. This letter has been sent by registered post to the defendant. Exhibit AW 2/1 is the postal-receipt showing that a registered letter had been sent to the respondent on 7.3.1978. When the letter of acceptance was sent by registered post a presumption arisen both u/s 114 of the Evidence Act and also u/s 27 of the General Clauses Act. It is no doubt true that the said presumption is rebuttal one. The burden of showing that the respondent has not received the acceptance letter lies on the respondent. It is for him to show by cogent evidence that he has not received the same. There is no material on record to show that the letter has not been posted or has not been received by the respondent. The reasoning given by the Additional District Judge discarding the notice Exhibit AW 2/3 and the postal receipt AW 2/1, are not in my view, correct. It is not necessary to examine any official of the Regional office and once it is proved that the letter of communication was sent by registered post, the presumption is that it has been received by the respondent.

In this view of the matter, I allow the revision petition, set aside the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, in MCA No. 25/34 of 1982 and restore that of the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Ludhiana dated 25.8.1982 in Civil Suit No. 186/80.