1984 Supreme(SC) 217
R.S.PATHAK, V.D.TULZAPURKAR
RENUSAGAR POWER COMPANY LTD. – Appellant
Versus
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY – Respondent
Advocates:
referred to : Government of Gibraltar v. Kenney
Heyman v. Darwins Ltd.
Dhanrajamal Gobindram v. Shamji Kalidas and Co., AIR 1961 SC 1285
Khardah Company Ltd. v. Raymon and Co., AIR 1962 SC 1810
Willesford v. Watson
Jawahar Lal Burman v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 378
Balabux Agarwalla v. Sree Lachminarain Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Waverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Raymon and Co., AIR 1963 SC 90
relied on : Astro Vencedor, Compania Naviera SA of Panama v. Mabanaft GmbH
Union of India v. Salween Timber Construction (India), AIR 1969 SC 488
Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pearey Lal Kumar, AIR 1952 SC 119
approved : C.I.T. v. Kameshwar Singh
Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T.
distinguished : C.I.T. v. Ogale Glass Works Ltd., AIR 1954 SC 429
H.P. Gupta v. Hiralal, 1970 1 SCC 437
referred to : Radha Bihari Diwan Singh v. G.B. Alexander
Dhiraj Lal Ram Prasad v. Sir Jacob Behrens and Sons
Vasanji Navji and Co. v. K.P.C. Spinners
relied on : Russell on Arbitration
approved : Woolf v. Collis Removal Service
Alliance Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Lalchand Dharamchand
relied on : Union of India v. Salween Timber Construction (India), AIR 1969 SC 488
Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pearey Lal Kumar, AIR 1952 SC 119
distinguished : Monro v. Bognor Urban District council
Ghewarchand Rampuria v. Shiva Jute Bailing Ltd.
referred to : Russell on Arbitration, Treatise of New York Convention
Shiva Jute Bailing Ltd. v. Hindley and Co. Ltd., AIR 1959 SC 1357
R.N. Ganekar and Co. v. Hindustan Wires Ltd., 1974 1 SCC 309
V/O Tractoro-export v. Tarapore and Co., 1969 3 SCC 562
approved : Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. v. National Bank of Pakistan
Vallabh Pitti v. Narsinghdas Govindram Kalani
Brown v. Oesterreichischer Waldbesitzer R. GmbH
Luanda Exportadora v. Tamari and Sons
Pannallal Sagoremull v. Fatey Chand Muralidhar
Fertilizer Corporation of India v. Chemical Construction Corporation
relied on : Jawahar Lal Burman v. Union of India, 1962 3 SCR 769
Heyman v. Darwins Ltd.
Willesford v. Watson
Reliable Water Supply Service of India v. Union of India, 1972 4 SCC 168
explained : Anderson Wright Ltd. v. Moran and Co., AIR 1955 SC 53
approved : Bhagwandas v. Atmasing
Modem Buildings Wales Ltd. v. Limmer and Trinidad Co. Ltd.
referred to : Khusiram v. Hantumal Boid
Attorney-General for Manitoba v. Kelly
Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. v. National Bank of Pakistan
Backer Auto Radio case
Municipal Board v. Eastern U.P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd.
Jagan Nath Phool Chand v. Union of India
R. Prince and Co. v. governor-General in council
Vallabh Pitti v. Narsingdas Govindram Kalani
Strauss and Co. v. Raghubar Dayal
( 27 ) TURNING to aspect (b) which is really the crux of the matter on merits, we shall have to ascertain the precise nature of the three claims in order to determine whether they fall within the Arbitration Clause which uses expressions of the widest possible amplitude and content. While narrating the chronological events in the earlier part of our Judgment we have indicated what these three claims are and how they have arisen. The three claims are: (a) 2. 1 million U. S. dollars being the Unpaid Regular Interest, (b) U. S. $7,84,151. 84 being the Delinquent Interest and (c) 4. 1 million U. S. dollars being the Compensatory Damages. As explained earlier the first claim represents the quantum of 73% of the regular interest which was wrongly deducted and wrongly withheld and retained by Renusagar from 1970 onwards allegedly for payment of income-tax not withstanding the Delhi High court's judgment in effect retrospectively restoring the tax exemption granted in favour of G. E. C. ; the second claim. represents interest claimed by G. E. C. on account of the delay that occurred in the payment of four instalments of purchase price together with interest on their due dates as per the or
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
