The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforcement of arbitral awards, compensation for breach of contract under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the interpretation of the Agreement between the parties.

ORDER

Navin Chawla, J. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 26.08.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP No.480 of 2008 dismissing the objections filed by the appellant under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the Arbitral Award dated 12.08.2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Arbitral Award') passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.

2. The parties herein had entered into an agreement dated 05.11.1979 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Agreement') where under the appellant was to acquire 1200 MTs of Arhar Whole for conversion into Arhar Dall. The entire milling operation was to be completed within 45 days from the 11th working day after the issue of acceptance of the tender by the respondent.

3. The respondent, alleging that the appellant had failed to make financial arrangements for allowing the lifting of the allotted quantity of Arhar Whole and thereby violating the terms of the Agreement, terminated the Agreement vide its notice dated 28.07.1980. The resultant dispute between the parties was referred to Shri Shiv Prakash, Additional Legal Advisor, Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs, who was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator.

4. The learned Sole Arbitrator passed an Award dated 28.06.1991 (hereinafter referred to as the 'previous Award'), awarding claim nos.3 and 6 of the appellant to the tune of Rs.4,22,400/- (Rupees four lakh twenty-two thousand four hundred only) and Rs. 1,94,800/-(Rupees one lakh ninety-four thousand eight hundred only) respectively in favour of the appellant. The previous Award was, however, set aside by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi vide Judgment dated 06.07.2005 passed in Suit No. 122/03/96 registered on the filing of the previous Award by the Arbitrator.

5. The appellant filed an appeal being FAO No.357/2005 challenging the said Judgment dated 06.07.2005. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 24.01.2006 directed the respondent to appoint fresh Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause of the Agreement to adjudicate and decide the claims of the parties.

6. In compliance with the said direction, Sh.Surender Gandodtra was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator.

7. The learned Sole Arbitrator vide his Arbitral Award, allowed the claims of the respondent directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 13,36,120.31/- (Rupees thirteen crore thirty-six lakh one hundred twenty and thirty-one paise only) to the respondent along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The counter claims of the appellant were rejected by the learned Sole Arbitrator.

8. The appellant challenged the said Arbitral Award by way of an application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act, being OMP No. 480 of 2008, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by way of the Impugned Order.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned Arbitral Award and the Impugned Order passed by the learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside as they failed to appreciate that during the pendency of the challenge of the respondent to the previous Award, the parties had agreed to settle all the disputes and accordingly appointed Justice K.L. Issrani (Retd.) to give his opinion on the dispute, with an undertaking that the opinion given would be binding on the parties. Justice K.L. Issrani (Retd.) had given an opinion that the respondent should accept the previous Award. However, the respondent never shared this opinion with the appellant and allowed its objections to be heard on merit, which were ultimately allowed by the Judgment dated 06.07.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge referred hereinabove. He submits that the opinion of Justice K.L. Issrani (Retd.) was brought to the knowledge of the appellant only pursuant to an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Appellant thereafter placed the opinion before the Arbitrator requesting