JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The petitioner, Steel Authority of India Limited has filed the present application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the award passed by the learned sole Arbitrator dated 19th June, 2013 between (Balaji Industrial Products Limited vs. Steel Authority of India).

2. A Tender Notice was published by the Steel Authority of India inviting offers for sale of 60,000 Metric Tonnes of Run of Mines (Iron Ore), from the mining face of Ranichua Bench of Gua Ore Mines. The respondent had participated in the said tender process. The respondent being the highest bidder and as such the petitioner issued a Letter of Intent dated 26th February, 2005 to the respondent offering the material at the rate of Rs. 807/- per MT exclusive of excise duty, sale tax and other taxes and duties.

3. On acceptance of the letter of intent, the respondent has deposited security deposit of Rs. 24,21,000/- on 16th March, 2005. The contract period was 90 days from the date of issuance of first delivery order. On 16th March, 2005, the first delivery order was issued for lifting 30,000/- MT of materials and the respondent has paid an amount of Rs. 2,52,26,760/- towards the value of 30,000/- MT of the Run of Mines (ROM) in advance in terms of the clauses of the contract contained in the terms of conditions.

4. As per the Notice Inviting Tender and the contract entered between the parties, payment for the second instalment of 30,000/- MT of the said material was to be paid within 45 days from the issue of the first delivery order and only on such receipt of second instalment by the petitioner, the second delivery order would be issued to the respondent.

5. The delivery will be by road from Mining face Ranichua Bench of Gua Ore Mines and the petitioner will arrange mechanical loading from the located site to truck/dumper. The delivery of the materials in terms of delivery order issued shall be taken up by the respondent within the stipulated period mentioned in the delivery order.

6. A dispute was cropped up between the parties on the allegation and counter allegation to the effect that the petitioner had the knowledge about the labour unrest at the site of delivery and it would be impossible for the petitioner to give delivery of the materials within the stipulated time to the respondent, suppressing the said fact of labour unrest, the petitioner incorporated the force majeure conditions clause with the object of protecting the petitioner against the loss and damages and the petitioner has not delivered the material of first delivery orders as per schedule and even after extension of time some quantity was undelivered. The further dispute is that the respondent has not paid the balance amount of the balance quantity of the materials within 45 days from the date of receipt of the first delivery order.

7. By an order dated 24th October, 2005, the petitioner had terminated the contract by forfeiting the security deposit and leftover quantity was treated as abandoned goods by applying the provisions of Clause 11 of the special terms and conditions of the contract.

8. Mr. Anindya Mitra, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner submitted that as per contract term, if loading or dispatch was affected due to any reason attributable to the petitioner, respondent will get suitable extension of time. He submits that the respondent complained that loading was affected due to labour unrest at the mine site for 71 days and dispatch by breakdown of weighbridge of the petitioner was affected for 5 days. The respondent had applied for extension of time and the petitioner had granted more than 76 days till 29th August, 2005. He submits that the respondent had lifted only 28,435.230 MT and had left 1564.780 MT un-lifted. He submits that the respondent had not applied for further extension for delivery of unlifted item and thus the balance 1564.780 MT of the first lot stood abandoned as per clause 11 of the contract.