The failure to dispute facts and cross-examine witnesses can lead to implied admission, influencing the court's decision.

G.S. KULKARNI, J.

1. This appeal by the Appellant (original Respondent before the learned Arbitrator) under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act'), is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th March, 2016 whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the Appellant's Petition filed under Section 34 of the Act, assailing the arbitral Award dated 10th December, 2014 of the learned sole Arbitrator.

In nutshell the facts are:-

2. The Appellant had issued a tender notice inviting bids “for hiring services for operation of 58 tractors / trailers for transportation of ISO freight tenderers within the container terminal of the Appellant.” The Respondent was a successful bidder and accordingly, a contract was awarded to the Respondent. An agreement dated 6th September, 2000 came to be entered between the Appellant and the Respondent. The contract period was for three years i.e. from 1st September, 2000 to 31st August, 2003. As per the tender conditions a successful tenderer was required to furnish a bank guarantee towards security deposit equivalent to Rs.65 lakhs and was entitled to raise monthly bills towards containers handled by it during the contract period. Payment of bills, for the work to be executed by the contractor, was required to be settled by the Appellant within thirty days from the date of submissions of the bills.

3. As seen from the pleadings and the award, there was no issue between the parties till July, 2003. The Appellant had made payments of the bills raised by the Respondent for the contractual work. A dispute arose between the parties after completion of the contract. The Respondent raised claims under different heads and initially made a money claim of Rs.1,87,17,444.62 with further interest at 18% per annum which amount was later reduced by the Respondent to Rs.1,39,17,644.62.

4. The Respondent had approached this Court in Arbitration Application No.134 of 2006. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 6th October, 2006 held that the dispute between the parties as urged in the said Arbitration Application was not arbitrable and accordingly, rejected the arbitration application. The Respondent thereafter approached the Supreme Court. By an order dated 16th February, 2009 the Supreme Court appointed a retired Hon'ble Judge of the Karnataka High Court as the sole Arbitrator.

5. Before the learned Arbitrator in support of its claim, the Respondent asserted that in pursuance of a representation made by the Respondent, a meeting was held on 20th October, 2009 in the Chamber of Mr.S.K.Kaul, Chief Manager (Admn.) & Secretary, of the Appellant, for discussing the claims of the Respondent and the counterclaims of the Appellant, to resolve the disputes amicably, as pending before the learned Arbitrator. According to the Respondent in the said meeting Mr.S.K.Kaul, Chief Manager (Admn.) & Secretary of the Appellant alongwith other officers on behalf of the Appellant, offered a proposal based on a summary prepared by the Appellant dated 31st May, 2005. A total sum of Rs.77,47,991/- was agreed as payable to the Respondent on the condition that the Respondent withdraws its claim for refund of breakdown charges, which the Respondent agreed in the said meeting so as to amicably resolve the dispute. By a letter of the Respondent dated 28th October, 2009, the minutes of the said meeting dated 20th October, 2009 were forwarded by the Respondent to the Chief Manager (Admn.) & Secretary of the Appellant.

6. By a letter of the Deputy Manager (Legal) dated 10th November,2010 the said minutes of the meeting were forwarded to the Chief Manager (Admn) and Secretary as also the Senior Manager (CT) and the Manager (Finance). Thus the Appellants cannot dispute that the Appellants were not aware about this settlement. Admittedly, these developments had taken place during the pendency