Back
High Court Of Delhi
SACO RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Suit 1726 of 1994
Decided On : 01/19/1998
Held:
The learned arbitrator clearly held that he examined the claimants contentions and respondentsreply and found that some of the deviations quoted by the claimant were material and in view of the settled position of law he accepted claimants objections and held that the risk purchase was not legally valid and, thereforee, rejected counter claim No. 1 of the respondent. With regard to the claim for general damages under counter claim No. 2, the learned arbitrator held on appreciation of pleadings, evidence and documents on record and arguments advanced by both the parties that the market rate around the date of breach on which the claim was based had not been proved according to law and the claim was, thereforee, not tenable.
The learned Arbitrator elaborately examined the merits of each claim and counter claims and even asked the parties, to make the written submissions which form part of the record. The oral as well as documentary evidence was placed on record and it will not be open for this Court to reappraise the same and arrive at contrary conclusions by re-examining the whole matter. The objections filed by the Union of India are without force and arc. dismissed accordingly. The Award dated 15th July, 1994 is made Rule of the Court and decree in terms thereof is passed.
( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of the objections filed by the respondent-Union of India under Sections 16,30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act impugning the Award dated July 15, 1994 to the extent it allowed claims of the petitioner and rejected counter claims of the respondent.
( 2 ) THE claimant had entered into a running contract with the respondent for supply of Canvas Shoes vide AT No. RGC/wl-3/shoes Canvas/0598/82-83/63/ii/870/paod dated 6. 7. 1982, but the claimant failed to complete the supply and the contract was rescinded by the respondent for the balance quantity at the claimant s risk and cost. The petitioner claimant as a consequence filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in this Court as a result of which claims as detailed in the Annexure attached to the statement of claims were ordered to be REFERRED TO to arbitration and the Director General Supplies and Disposals appointed Mrs. R. Lakhmanan as arbitrator but she having been transferred resigned from the case and Dr. B. N. Mani, Additional Legal Advisor was appointed in her place. The parties filed their statement of claims, counter claims, documents as well as affidavits in support of their contentions. Dr. B. N. Mani retired on reaching the age of superannuation and resigned as arbitrator from the case and the matter was not concluded. Thereafter the case was entrusted to the present arbitrator as appointed by this Court on January 16, 1991 in OMP No. 34/90. The petitioner claimant filed written submissions with regard to its claims and the Union of India filed counter claims on 6th April, 1992 to which replies were filed.
( 3 ) THE petitioner raised the following claims before the learned arbitration for adjudication: "claim No. 1 Value of 38,668 pairs @ Rs. 15. 31 per pair duly inspected for supply (At the time of filing of Section 20 petition, there were 61558 pairs ut of which 22890 pairs were sold on 11th April 1986 by way of distress sale ). Rs. 5,92,008. 00
CLAIM No. 2 Loss incurred on the distress sale of 22890 Rs. 1,04,747. 00 pairs.
CLAIM No. 3 Interest @18% per annum on Rs. 9,42,453. 00 with effect from 22nd September, 1983, date of offer to 17th April, 1986, the date when distress sale was made Rs. 4,38,240. 00 i. e. interest in 31 months.
CLAIM No. 4 Interest @ 18% per annum on:
I) Rs. 46,812. 00 of bill No. DG747 dated 19th March, 1983 from 19th March, 1983, date of bill till 12th April, 1985, when the payment was credited to our account i. e. 25th months. Rs. 17,554
II)RS. 45,189. 00 of bill No. DG-820 dated 26. 3. 84, from 26th March, 1984 date of bill till 12th April 1985, when the payment was credited to Rs. 26,365. 00 our account i. e. for 12 months. Rs. 8,811. 00
CLAIM No. 5 Balance 2% payment of the quantity already supplied. Rs. 58,017. 00
CLAIM No. 6 Interest @ 18% per annum on Rs. 58,017. 00 from 15th July, 1984, the expiry of delivery date till 17th June, 1986, the date of filing of the petition. Rs. 2,175. 00
CLAIM No. 7 Loss of profit @10% on the balance quantity of 157674 pairs @ Rs. 15. 31 per pair. Rs. 2,41,398. 00
CLAIM No. 8 Interest @18% per annum on Rs. 241399. 00 from 12th September, 1984 the date of cancellation of the order to 15th June, 1986 the date of filing of petition. Rs. 2,293. 00
CLAIM No. 9 Proportionate loss incurred by way of loss of wages and overheads etc:
I) Loss of wages 14740. 00
II) Loss of overheads @2% on the value of remained quantity 2413989 48280. 00
III) Loss of maintenance of Pandm. 2500. 00
CLAIM No. 10 Rs. 65,520. 00
A)DIFFERENCE of interest @11% per annum (payable 18% less 7% recoverable from the bank on Rs. 25,000 deposited for furnishing the bank guarantee for Rs. 75,000. 00 , from 8th September, 1982, the date when Rs. 25,000. 00 was deposited upto the date of filing of petition under Section 20 of Arbitration Act. Rs. 5,729. 00
B) Bank charges on above bank guarantee charged by bank on 9th September, 1992. Rs. 844. 00
C) Interest on Rs. 844. 00 @18 per cent per ann
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
