IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
GOUTAM BHADURI, N.K. CHANDRAVANSHI, JJ.
Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Kumar Jain S/o Late Hiralal Jain – Respondent
ARBA No. 5 of 2017
Decided On : 03-05-2023
Arbitration Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Arbitration Agreement - Reference of dispute to arbitration - Re-appreciation of evidence- whether the Commercial Court has acted under the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, 1996 or not - Held, It compulsory for plaintiff to prove that he has suffered damages and extent to which he has suffered before a Court can award him damages for breach of contract and if he does not give the best evidence every presumption should be made against him - This does not relieve Court altogether of duty of assessing damages - Arbitrator has assessed damages only on basis of oral statement and on guess work same cannot be sustained and it would therefore fall within four corners of patent illegality - Appeal Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
GOUTAM BHADURI, J.
1. This appeal is against the order dated 02.01.2017 passed by the Commercial Court, Raipur, whereby the appeal filed by appellant herein against the award dated 15.07.2012 passed by Sole Arbitrator was affirmed by the Commercial Court. The Arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,71,80,584/- with interest in favour of respondent.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd offered a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for mining and transportation of 3,70,000 MTs of Bauxite from Mainpat Mines to its Alumina Plant at Korba (Chhattisgarh). Respondent Ramesh Kumar Jain Proprietor of R.K. Transport Company submitted its tender quoting @ Rs. 697/- per Metric Ton which was the lowest bidding and as such on 11.12.1999 the agreement was entered between BALCO-Appellant and the Claimant/respondent governing contract. Thereafter, in terms of contract, by letter dated 20.01.2000, work was awarded for mining and transportation of 2,22,000 MTs of Bauxite from Mainpat Mines to Alumina Plant of Balco at Korba amounting to Rs. 14,07,92,400/- at the rate of Rs. 634.20 per MT and the entire work was to be completed within a stipulated period of 18 months. The period of agreement was 18 months, which was to expire by May, 2001 but subsequently it was extended uptill September, 2001. The variable factor price of diesel was included in the contract taking into basis of average distance of 220 Kms from Mainpat Mines to Alumina Plant of BALCO at Korba (CG). By letter dated 05.01.2002, the appellant Company requested the respondent to continue the work and it was stated that the rate would be decided in due course of time. The respondent continued the work and further extracted and transported the total 1,95,000 MTs of Bauxite during the period 16.06.2001 to 31.03.2002. Since the negotiations to the extent of payment could not be settled, the Contractor raised the dispute regarding payment of contract work as also for the extra work done by him as per Clause 9.2.3 of the general terms of the Contract. The application having been filed before the High Court under Section 11(6) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the High Court by its order dated 12.04.2007 passed in MCC No. 192/2006 referred the dispute to the Sole Arbitrator for adjudication.
3. The appellant filed its reply and denied the claim statement and raised different defence on the basis of which, 13 issues were framed by the Sole Arbitrator and after evidence eventually the award was passed on 15.07.2012. The award was challenged before the Commercial Court, Raipur. The said appeal was dismissed by an Order dated 02.01.2017 by the Commercial Court u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996.
4. At Para 75, the Arbitrator allowed the claims to the following extent:
| As against the claim made by the complaint in | Amount awarded by the Tribunal |
|
| Claim for extra work of 195000 MT during the period June 2001 to 31st March 2002 | Rs. 31,85,000/- | (Including interest upto the date of filing of the statement of claim i.e. August, 2007) |
| Claim for restriction on carrying capacity of Trucks/ Tippers which resulted extra cost of transportation was awarded. | Rs. 1,23,06,058/- | (Including interest upto the date of filing of the statement of Claim i.e. August, 2007) |
| Claim for idle man power and machinery during strike at BALCO was awarded. | Rs. 71,36,568/- | (Including interest upto the date of filing of the statement of Claim i.e. August, 2007) |
| Delayed payment | Rs. 8,30,157/- | (Interest only) |
| Total | Rs. 2,34,57,783/- |
|
On all these amounts interest was levied till August 2007. Thus the total claim awarded to the claimant comes to the total of the above figures including the principal amount till the filing of claim as Rs. 2,34,57,783/-. It was further ordered that the Claimant sha
Alopi Parshad and Sons Ltd. vs. Union of India
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. Annapurna Construction
Kanchan Udyog Limited vs. United Spirits Limited
Kailash Nath Associates vs. Delhi Development Authority and Another
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited vs. Tata Communications Limited
Md. Army Welfare Housing Organization vs. Sumangal Services (P) Ltd. (2004) 9 SCC 619
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited
ONGC vs. Western Geco International Ltd. (2014) 9 SCC 263 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 12
Satyanarayana Construction Company vs. Union of India and Others
State of Chhattisgarh and Another vs. Sal Udyog Private Limited
Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited vs. National Highways Authority of India
Judicial review of arbitral awards is limited, focusing on patent illegality and public policy; courts should respect arbitrators' decisions unless they lack evidence or contravene explicit terms of ....
An arbitrator may award escalated costs due to employer delay despite prohibitory clauses, reinforcing that delays affecting contractor performance can lead to compensatory claims.
The Court held that the learned Arbitrator had erred in decreeing the award with respect to the rate of interest, and hence, the Award qua issue no. 20 with regards to the rate of interest is liable ....
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.