( 1 ) THESE two arbitration applications are filed by the same petitioner against the same respondents seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondents in connection with the two separate contract works entered into between them.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in both the applications is M/s. Deepak Galvanising and Engineering Industries Private Limited, Secunderabad and the respondents relate to the Department of Telecommunications, the 1st respondent being the Government of India, represented by Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, New Delhi and the 2nd respondent being the Director General, Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, New Delhi. The petitioner company undertook the work of fabrication and structuring of Micro Wave Towers as required by the Telecommunications Department. The Telecommunications Department issued Notification dated 27-7-1992 inviting tenders for the manufacture of self supporting towers of the height of 60 mts. and 80 mts. The tenders submitted by the petitioner for both the said works were accepted by the respondent, which issued an advance purchase order dated 24-3-1993 and placed provisional order with the petitioner Company for the supply of 26 Nos. of 60 mts. SS towers and 22 Nos. of 80 mts. SS towers. As per the advance purchase order, the petitioner Company had to furnish a performance security bond in the form of bank guarantee for Rs. 17,00,000. 00 for both the works. The petitioner accordingly furnished the bank guarantee for Rs. 17,00,000. 00 on 18-8-1993, which was valid upto 18-8-1996 and it was extended till 18-2-1997. The respondents thereupon placed a firm order on 27-8-1993 with the petitioner-Company for the supply of 26 Nos. of 60 mts. SS towers for a value of Rs. 1,38,84,000. 00 and the said work had to be completed within six months from the date of purchase order. But on account of the delay occurred on the part of the respondent-Department at every stage namely, supply of drawings, inspecting the towers, giving consignee details etc. , the petitioner had to seek extension of time for delivering the towers as agreed upon. Having noticed some defects in the structural stability of the towers constructed by the petitioner, the respondent-Department instructed the petitioner to stop production during the contract period. The respondent-Department took considerable time for the petitioner to complete the work undertaken by him. Inspite of several requests by the petitioner, there was delay on the part of the Department in sending the list of consignees by various State Units and in sending the required forms. There was also diversions of the items from one State to another on the last minute. On account of such lapses on the part of the respondent-Department and also on account of the Department in not discharging the bank guarantee in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was put to heavy loss under various heads. The disputes thus arose between the petitioner and the respondent-Department relating to the contract for supply of 26 Nos. of 60 mts. SS towers, which were in fact supplied, though with some delay, to the respondent.

( 3 ) REGARDING the second contract for the supply of 22 Nos. of 80 mts. SS towers, the respondent-Department issued purchase order on 25-11-1994, thereby placing firm order on the petitioner-Company for the supply of 22 Nos. of 80 mts. SS towers, for a value of Rs. 1,99,76,572. 00 within a period of six months from the date of the purchase order. But on account of the delay, on the part of the respondent-Department involved at every stage, namely, supply of drawings, according approval, inspecting the towers, etc. , the petitioner had to seek extension of time for delivering the towers as agreed upon. Having noticed some defects in the structural stability of the towers the respondent-Department instructed the petitioner-Company to stop production of the towers duri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document