TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2159 TERM CONTRACT FOR ARTIFICERS WORK (IAFW-1821) MEASUREMENT CONTRACT - IAFW-1779 & 1779A 1. A copy of GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACTS (IAFW-2249 1976 PRINT) with Errata No. 1 to 27 and Amendment No. 1 to 27 has been supplied to me/us and is in my/our possession. I/We have read and understood the provisions contained in the aforesaid GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACTS before submission of this tender and I/We agree that I/We shall before abide by the terms and conditions thereof, as modified, if any elsewhere in these tender documents. 2. It is hereby further agreed and declared by me/us, that the GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACTS-IAFW-2249 (1976 PRINT) including Conditions 70 there pertaining to settlement of disputes by arbitration contain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....give reasons for the findings arrived at by him. 4. On 4.9.1986, the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi sanctioned an amendment in the general conditions of the contract which reads as under:- Amendment No. Page No. " Particulars 48 24 Condition 70 Sub para 9. Add the following at the Print end of the sub paras: "If the value of the claims or counter claims in an arbitration reference exceeds Rs. 1 lakh the arbitration shall given reasons for the award. 1978 2. Sanction of the Government is also accorded for incorporation of the above mentioned amendment at the appropriate place in the ear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the amendment dated 4.9.1986 applies only to the contracts entered into on and after that date and in any case the respondents could not have amended the general conditions of contract all by themselves and without the consent of the appellant and, therefore, the arbitration clause governing the parties was the one as contained in the general conditions of contract which existed and were applicable on 29.5.1985, the date on which the contract was entered into between the parties. Shri Prateek Jalan, learned counsel for the respondents, has, however, submitted that the acceptance letter signed by the appellant on 22.2.1985 should be read and interpreted as the appellant having authorized the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; v. The General Assurance Society Ltd., , as also on a few other authorities. Benode Behary Roy's case (supra) related to a service dispute. The plaintiff took up an employment with the respondent company the bye-laws whereof provided for the release of gratuity on retirement. Subsequently the company amended the bye-laws and provision for gratuity was deleted. The plaintiff laid a claim for gratuity submitting that on the date of plaintiff's entering into contract of employment with the company there was a provision for gratuity and the bye-laws could not have been amended without the consent of the plaintiff so as to take away his right to gratuity. The learned single Judge held that the letter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Contract (10th Edition, 1999, at p. 55) and speech of Stoughton LJ in Court of Appeal in Lombard Tricity Finance Ltd. v. Paton, [1989] 1 All ER 919, taking the view that a contract may also give one of the parties the power unilaterally to vary the obligations and if such power can be spelled out from the terms of the contract and is held to be lawful then a unilateral variation of obligation by one party shall be binding on the other party to the contract. On principle, there may not be a dispute with the legal proposition so forcefully advanced by the learned counsel. However, the question is of its applicability to the case at hand. As we have already pointed out, the letter of acceptance dated 22.2.1985 cannot be so read as to spell o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant without assigning any reason was bad. Such an omnibus and general plea cannot be read as submitting that the amendment dated 4.9.1986 applied to the contract between the parties and that in view of the amended arbitration clause the unreasoned award was bad. It appears that the plea was for the first time raised at the appellate stage before the Division Bench of the High Court. Unwittingly the Division Bench fell into the error of entertaining such a plea and disposing of the appeal by upholding the same though the plea was not even available to the respondents to be raised at that stage. 12. At the end, the learned counsel for the respondents made an alternative submission that assuming the ground which prevailed with the ....