SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Del) 854

High Court Of Delhi
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
BWL LTD.FORMERLY KNOWN AS BHILAI WIRES LTD - Respondent
Decided On : 05/08/2006

The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 73, to determine legitimate and reasonable damages in cases of breach of contract.

Headnote:

Arbitration - Breach of Contract - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 73 - Public Policy - [BREACH OF CONTRACT] - [Arbitration] - [Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 73] - The court discussed the breach of contract in the context of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 73, and the public policy considerations.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner issued a tender for the supply of Armoured Optical Fibre Cables. The respondent's performance was delayed due to pending approvals, leading to the petitioner short-closing the contract and invoking the bank guarantee. The respondent sought compensation through arbitration.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner failed to adhere to the contract provisions and the sequence of responsibilities, leading to the delay. The court also held that the forfeiture of the bank guarantee was illegal and determined the damages based on the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 73.

Issues: The issues included the delay in performance, invocation of bank guarantee, and determination of damages.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to contract provisions and found the forfeiture of the bank guarantee to be illegal. The court also applied the principles of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 73, to determine damages.

Final Decision: The court modified the award to calculate the loss of profit at 15% instead of 20% and reduced the interest rate from 18% to 12% till the date of decree and 9% from the date of decree till the date of realization.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner floated a tender on 16. 04. 1999 for supply of 6f Armoured optical Fibre Cables (hereinafter to be referred to as, the cables ) along with required accessories in proportional quantities for Indian Manufacturer of optical Fibre Cables. The tender submitted by the respondent and four other companies was accepted and advance purchase order was issued by the petitioner on 11. 08. 1999 for supply of 871 kms. of the cables. The total value of contract awarded to the respondent was Rs. 5,56,61,562. 17.

( 2 ) IN terms of the tender notice, the respondent gave a performance security of rs. 23,14,000/ -. The respondent was issued a purchase order on 16. 09. 1999 for the said quantity of 871 kms. of cables along with accessories. The contract stipulated that the respondent was required to secure a Type Approval ensuring technical quality and specification from Tele-Communication Engineering Centre (for short, tec ), Department of Tele-Communication within 3 months from the date of issue of purchase order and the supplies were to be completed within 7 months from the date of the purchase order. The supplies were, thus, required to be completed before 15. 04. 2000. In view of the fact that the contract for supply of such cables was issued for the first time, special inspection to assess suitability of infrastructure of the respondent s factory for production of the cables was envisaged. Various quality control specifications were also provided. One of the conditions was that the date of delivery was the essence of contract (Condition 16. 1 of the General Conditions of the Contract ).

( 3 ) THE respondent applied for infrastructure assessment and Type Approval on 15. 12. 1999 and deposited the amount of fee with TEC for infrastructure assessment. Since the respondent was awaiting the approval, on 28. 03. 2000, a communication was addressed by it to the petitioner for extension of time for delivery and such extension was granted on 27. 04. 2000 by extending the delivery period to 28. 06. 2000. However, liquidated damages were also levied simultaneously and the respondent reduced the payment term from 95% of the price to 75% on delivery stipulating that the extension of delivery would be treated as the last extension. It may be noticed that the respondent was also executing the contract for supply of another type of cables called Aerial cables. The respondent sought a second extension on 21. 06. 2000 as the Type Approval had not come from TEC, but there was no response from the petitioner. The respondent again requested the petitioner for extension of delivery up to October, 2000 on 07/08. 07. 2000 on account of TEC approval being awarded. Finally on 21. 07. 2000, tec asked the respondent to deposit Rs. 65,000/- as fee for testing the cables and issuing Type Approval, which was immediately deposited by the respondent. At the stage when the matter was still pending with TEC, the petitioner on 24. 07. 2000 informed the respondent that on account of failure to complete the supply of cables on or before 28. 06. 2000 the purchase order was short-closed with immediate effect. The petitioner further encashed the bank guarantee of rs. 23,14,000/ -. The respondent thereafter issued a legal notice to the petitioner alleging breach of contract and claimed compensation of rs. 1,71,92,613/- along with interest @ 24% p. a. from 24. 07. 2000. The same was not replied to and, thus, a notice dated 04. 04. 2001 was issued invoking the arbitration clause under the contract between the parties and seeking appointment of an arbitrator. As no arbitrator was appointed, proceedings were initiated by the respondent before the Delhi High Court and in those proceedings, Justice S. B. Wad (Retd.) was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator.

( 4 ) THE Arbitrator made and published his Award dated 07. 12. 2004 awarding a total amount of Rs. 2,46,18,890. 43 inclusive of interest up to the date of award and costs apart from future int























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top