JUDGMENT - SHAH A.P., J.:---This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside the Award passed by the learned Umpire Mr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (retired C.J.I.) short facts concerning the Award in question may be stated as follows:

By a telex dated 6-6-1988, the appellant placed order on the respondent for design engineering, fabrication, supply and installation and testing and commissioning of pipelines for the D-18 field. The telex set out the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties. Clause (1) of the telex referred to technical specifications and scope of work. These had to be "as per the tender document and as clarified through exchange of various telexes and letters". Clause 2 of the telex called "delivery schedule" provided that the complete scope of the work to be completed by end of October 1988. The price payable for the total work was FF 2,65,40,000. One of the important terms of the contract was that 10% of the contract value would be paid to the respondent on their opening the letter of credit on their vendor for the supply of pipe against equivalent bank guarantee for refund. The respondents were to submit a performance bond in the sum of FF 26,54,000 which was 10% of the contract value at the time of the signing of the contract. By the said telex the respondent was asked to collect a draft contract by 22-6-1988 so that the contract could be signed by 4-7-1988. The telex stated that until the contract was signed by the parties, the telex order shall remain binding on the parties. As originally agreed between the parties, the date of commencement of the contract was 6-6-1988 and the date of completion was 6-12-1988 and that, any rescheduling of the commencement and the completion dates had to be by mutual agreement in terms of Clause 8.5 of the contract. According to the respondent, the schedule of the project was affected by the delays caused by the appellant in keeping several key free issue components for the project ready. It was imperative, according to the respondent, that once their marine spread was mobilized it would remain fully busy upon arrival in India in order that stand by cost could be avoided. The appellant was not agreeable to paying U.S.D. 35,000 per day as stand by charges demanded by the respondent. According to the respondent, the first stage invoice was submitted by them to the appellant on 14-8-1988 but no payment was made by the appellant as stipulated. As a matter of fact the said payment was never made on the ground that the appellant could not have made the payment in foreign exchange unless the written contract was signed by the appellant. On 26-9-1988 the appellant demanded written consent to the change in the schedule and asked the respondents to reach the site on 17-11-1988. According to the respondent, as a result of re-scheduling the completion date had also to be pushed further to 29-12-1998. If that was not done, and if the original schedule in Annexure 6 of the draft contract was allowed to stand, the respondent would have become liable for liquidated damages. It appears that discussions were held in various meetings between the parties. While the negotiations were in progress, the appellant encashed the bid bond for U.S.D. 1,75,000.

2.Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, the respondent filed Arbitration Suit No. 3945 of 1991 under section 20 of the Arbitration Act for reference of the dispute to the arbitration as per the contract. In the statement of claim annexed to the suit the respondent claimed U.S.D. 21-2-1989 details of which are given in paragraph 27 of the statement of claim. However, the respondents restricted their claim on 2 million dollars, in addition, to the claim for refund of amount of bid bond with interest at 12 percent per annum from 28-12-1988 which is the date of invocation of bid amount till realizati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document