SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. Indian Petrochemical Corporation Ltd (for short, IPCL) entered into a distributorship agreement (hereinafter referred to as the said agreement) with the respondent on 13.01.1991 for the execution of which the respondent/distributor maintained a depot in Varanasi where it traded various goods produced by IPCL. The said agreement was renewed on a yearly basis. It is stated that in 1997, certain loopholes arose in the said agreement due to failure in exercising of due control on financial management by the petitioner in relation to various customers. Certain sale proceeds which were to be recovered by IPCL were not recovered by them in time but goods continued to be supplied to such customers. It is claimed that IPCL passed on its liabilities to the respondent.

2. It is stated that there were certain categories of consignment from IPCL which were handled by the respondent and IPCL had dispatched material to customers falling within the said categories and that when sale proceeds against such customers were not recovered the same were imposed/shown as arrears payable by the respondent even though it was not covered by the agreement.

3. It is stated that the agreement dated 1.10.1997 was renewed by a circular dated 04.12.1998 wherein in the schedule, certain products were included which were not part of the schedule items of the previous agreements. It was alleged by the respondent that huge amounts were shown as dues payable by the respondent against such products. The respondent claimed that it had brought these errors to the notice of IPCL but IPCL stopped the supply of goods after June 2000 and the distributorship agreement was also not renewed.

4. The respondent filed a civil suit being suit no. 1783/2000 against the the regional manager, financial controller, sales manager, and director marketing of IPCL for a permanent injunction against the invocation of certain bank guarantees and also the relief of a direction to the said officers of IPCL to dispatch goods as per the dispatch schedule issued and payment debited. The bank which had issued the said bank guarantees was also made a party. In the said suit, an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was filed for reference of the disputes to arbitration in terms of the rules of the Indian Council of Arbitration. The existence of the arbitration clause in the agreement was not in controversy. The said suit was disposed of vide order dated 29.10.2001 in terms whereof, all the disputes between the parties including disputes raised in the plaint in the said suit were to be referred to arbitration in accordance with the rules 20 and 21 of the Indian Council of Arbitration.

5. An arbitral tribunal of three arbitrators adjudicated the disputes. The claimant i.e. respondent herein preferred 14 claims praying for the relief of renewal of the said agreement as also payment of Rs. 6,49,16,428.55 and other compensation and reliefs sought in the petition. The arbitral tribunal in a detailed award dated 31.08.2005 running into about 140 pages found the petitioner liable to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 3,36,50,615/- along with pendente lite and future interest on the said amount @ 10 per cent per annum besides costs. The present petition has been filed challenging the said award.

6. It may be noted that under a scheme of amalgamation between IPCL and M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. stated to be approved by the Gujarat High Court in C.P. 93/2007 on 16.08.2007, IPCL was merged into Reliance Industries Ltd. Reliance Industries Ltd. was thus substituted as the petitioner vide order of this court dated 11.09.2007.

7. IPCL has stated in the present petition that Claim A raised by the respondent deals with MOU Customers with respect to whom the tribunal has held that the customers were outside the agreement between IPCL and the respondent and was a separate contract. It is alleged that the ar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document