The court emphasized the importance of upholding the Arbitrator's findings and the limited scope of interference with arbitration awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) A Contract was executed between the petitioner and National Thermal power Corporation ( for short, "ntpc" ) in terms whereof the petitioner agreed to supply gas to NTPC for its power plant at Village Mujheri, Tehsil ballabhgarh, District Faridabad, w. e. f. 01. 05. 1999. " In furtherance of the contract, the petitioner provided a tap off at Village Chainsa in its main gas pipe line running from Bijapur to Dadr. " A fourteen km. long Spur pipeline of 14 inches diameter from tap off point at Village Chainsa to the power plant of ntpc at Faridabad was also required to be laid. " The petitioner, thus, floated a global tender through its consultants on 11. 04. 1998 for procuring the line-pipes of two descriptions.

( 2 ) THE respondent is engaged in the business of production of electric welded pipes and tendered its bid document to the petitioner, which was accepted by the petitioner. " This resulted in a purchase order dated 12. 08. 1998 for supply of line-pipes, which was duly signed by the respondent in token of its acceptance on 20. 08. 1998. " The purchase order was subsequently modified in terms of the clarification sought by the respondent, such clarification being issued by the petitioner vide letter dated 26. 08. 1998.

( 3 ) IN furtherance of the contract, the line-pipes were supplied by the respondent to the petitioner and the same were laid and installed by the petitioner. " It is the case of the petitioner that the pipes failed the Field hydrostatic Test even before the requisite test pressure was reached and the petitioner resorted to alternative remedial measures for carrying out its operations under the contract with NTPC and incurred huge expenditure. " On 01. 03. 2000, the petitioner sent a notice of demand, which was rebutted by the respondent vide its letter dated 14. 03. 2000. " The respondent also claimed that, in any case, the liability to reimburse the petitioner for alleged failure of its pipes during the Field Hydrostatic Test was only to the extent of 10% of the contract value.

( 4 ) THE disputes between the parties not having been resolved, the petitioner initiated arbitration proceedings under Article 30. 4. 1 to the General terms and Conditions of the Contract as set out in the letter dated 01. 03. 2000 and also requested the respondent to select an Arbitrator from the panel of three persons mentioned in the letter. " The respondent in turn requested for negotiation in a subsequent letter dated 10. 05. 2001 and in a letter dated 27. 03. 2003, the respondent requested for condonation of its lapses on account of failure of the pipes supplied to the Field Hydrostatic Test but claimed its liability to reimburse the petitioner was to the maximum extent of 10% of the contract value. " The petitioner was not satisfied with the same and invoked performance bank guarantee furnished by the respondent to the extent of 10% of the contract value. "

( 5 ) THE petitioner also filed a civil suit before the Delhi High Court for damages. " The respondent filed an application under Section 8 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( for short, "the said Act" ) seeking reference of disputes to arbitration in terms of Article 30. 4. 1 of the General conditions of Contract. " This application was allowed by this Court on 03. 11. 2004 and Justice Anil Dev Singh (Retd.) was appointed as the Sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. "

( 6 ) THE petitioner filed Statement of Claims in which a total sum of rs. 90,68,035/- was claimed. " One of the components of damages is the price difference between the cost of line-pipes of specified quality as compared to the one actually supplied by the respondent, which was alleged to be of lower specification, lower quality, lower strength, lower weight. " This claim was to the tune of Rs. 61,72,728/ -. "

( 7 ) THE Arbitrator made and published an Award dated 19. 04. 2007 holding that the petitioner was entitled to a total su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document