2007(6) Supreme 201
Supreme Court of india
(From Delhi High Court)
Tarun Chatterjee & Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
Markfed Vanaspati & Allied Industries — Petitioner
versus
Union of India — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 2668 of 2007
Decided on : 14-09-2007
(1989) 2 SCC 38; (1990) 1 SCC 433; (1994) 6 SCC 117; (1997) 11 SCC 75; (1999) 9 SCC 283; (1997) 11 SCC 40; (1998) 9 SCC 407; (2001) 3 SCC 351; (2004) 5 SCC 325 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
The respondent, Union of India, issued tender dated for purchase of oil. The appellant offered to supply 1600 metric tons of different categories of oil.
The respondent-Union of India accepted the offer given by the appellant and consequently the respondent issued tender in the form of a letter dated 22nd August, 1989. The appellant failed to supply the oil as per the delivery schedule. The time for supply was extended, reserving the respondent’s right to levy liquidated damages. All the supplies could not be delivered. The contract was cancelled and the appellant resorted to force majeure clause.
The dispute was referred to an arbitrator. The sole arbitrator made and published his award on 20th June, 1995. The appellant prayed before the arbitrator that in view of the extension of time on various occasions, the time was not the essence of the contract. The appellant has admitted various delays including in furnishing security, but stated that the same were unintentional.
Appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
Findings of the Court:
No interference is called for.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
DALVEER BHANDARI, J.—
1.This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 17.4.2006 passed in FAO (OS) No. 206/2006.
2.The respondent, Union of India, issued tender dated 29th June, 1989 for purchase of oil. The appellant offered to supply 1600 metric tons of different categories of oil vide quotation dated 15th July, 1989, the details of which are as under:
1.200 MT @ 24,150/- per MT by 31.8.89 (Refined Cotton Seed Oil)
2.500 MT @ Rs.21,500/- per MT by 31.8.1989 (Rapeseed Oil)
3.300 MT @ Rs.24,550/- per MT by 30.9.1989 (Refined Soyabeen Oil)
4.500 MT @ Rs.22,000/- per MT by 30.9.1989 (Rapeseed Oil).
3.The respondent-Union of India accepted the offer given by the appellant and consequently the respondent issued tender in the form of a letter dated 22nd August, 1989. The appellant failed to supply the oil as per the delivery schedule. The time for supply was extended, reserving the respondents right to levy liquidated damages. All the supplies could not be delivered. The contract was cancelled and the appellant resorted to force majeure clause.
4.The dispute was referred to an arbitrator. The sole arbitrator made and published his award on 20th June, 1995. The appellant prayed before the arbitrator that in view of the extension of time on various occasions, the time was not the essence of the contract. The appellant has admitted various delays including in furnishing security, but stated that the same were unintentional.
5.It may be pertinent to mention that the objections regarding limitation and jurisdiction were given up by the appellant before the Division Bench of the High Court. Before the Division Bench, the appellant sought the benefit of the force majeure clause because the government had banned the use and process of rapeseed oil by manufacturers. The Division Bench specifically noted in the impugned judgment that no other argument was advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Therefore, we requested the learned counsel for the appellant to confine his submissions only with regard to force majeure clause argued before the Division Bench of the High Court in this case. On the basis of the documents referred to the court by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is clear that the ban was imposed for the use of rapeseed oil for manufacturing Vanaspati but manufacturing of rapeseed oil was not debarred or restricted. Therefore, even the plea of force majeure clause taken by the appellant was found to be totally devoid of any merit.
6.The arbitrator in the instant case gave a non-speaking award, which was made rule of the court by the order of the learned Single Judge on 21st February, 2006. The appellant preferred FAO (O.S.) No.206/2006, before the Division Bench of the High Court, which was also dismissed on 17th April, 2006. The appellant has preferred special leave petition against the said impugned judgment of the Division Bench. This Court granted leave on 14th May, 2007.
7.The Division Bench, in the impugned judgment, while affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge has correctly observed that the ban was on the use of rapeseed oil for manufacturing Vanaspati but manufacture of rapeseed oil was not debarred or restricted.
8.We have heard Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Vikas Singh, the learned Addl. Solicitor General for the respondent, Union of India. In this case, the award has been made rule of the court by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and the findings of learned Single Judge have been affirmed by the Division Bench. The Court in the impugned judgment held that the force majeure clause could not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case. This was so because the ban covered the use of rapeseed oil for manufacturing Vanaspati, yet manufacturing rapeseed oil was not debarred or restricted. We concur with the learned Single Judges findings, which were
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.