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

2021 Supreme(Del) 1211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Bentwood Seating System P Limited - Appellant
Versus
Airport Authority Of India - Respondent
FAO(OS)(Comm) 97/2021 & Cm Appls. 23582-83/2021
Decided On : 11-08-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr.S.D.Singh With Mr.Rahul Kumar Singh, Mr.Jitender Singh and Ms.Meenu Singh, Advs., for the Appellant; Mr.K.K.Rai, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Digvijay Rai, Mr.Aman Yadav, Ms.Sreoshi Chatterjee And; Mr.Ramkrishna Veerendra Advs., for the Respondent.

The failure to address a fundamental issue in an Arbitral Award, such as the issue of fraud, cannot be cured by taking recourse to Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Headnote:

Fraud - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 37

Fact of the Case:

The dispute arose from a Purchase Order for supply of Passenger Baggage Trolleys (PBTs) placed by the respondent on the appellant. The respondent terminated the Purchase Order and invoked the Bank Guarantee, leading to arbitration proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the finding of the learned Arbitrator in setting aside the termination notice but set aside the Arbitral Award due to the failure of the Arbitrator to adjudicate on the essential issue of whether the Purchase Order had been procured by fraud.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Purchase Order had been obtained by the appellant by fraud, which was not adjudicated by the Arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure of the Arbitrator to address the issue of fraud in the Purchase Order was a fundamental defect that could not be cured by taking recourse to Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge to set aside the Arbitral Award due to the failure to address the issue of fraud in the Purchase Order.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') challenging the judgment and order dated 27.05.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in O.M.P. (COMM) No.262/2019, titled Airports Authority of India vs. Bentwood Seating System (P) Ltd., allowing the said petition filed under Section 34 of the Act by the respondent.

2. The above petition was filed by the respondent herein under Section 34 of the Act challenging the Arbitral Award dated 13.03.2019 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in arbitration case reference No. DIAC/2225/09-18 between the parties. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge has been pleased to allow the said petition and set aside the Arbitral Award on the ground that the learned Arbitral Tribunal has failed to decide one of the principal disputes between the parties in relation to the submission of the respondent that the purchase order dated 13.07.2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'Purchase Order') issued by the respondent in favour of the appellant had been procured by the appellant by fraud.

3. The dispute between the parties arises out of the Purchase Order dated 13.07.2017 placed by the respondent on the appellant for supply of 4000 Stainless Steel Type Passenger Baggage Trolleys (hereinafter referred to as 'PBTs'). It need only be noticed that the respondent issued a Show Cause Notice dated 08.01.2018 to the appellant, calling upon the appellant to show cause why the contract should not be terminated as only 550 PBTs had been supplied till that date. The appellant replied to the Show Cause Notice on 17.01.2018, however, the respondent terminated the Purchase Order on 20.02.2018. The respondent also invoked the Bank Guarantee furnished by the appellant and debarred the appellant for a period of three years with effect from 20.02.2018 from participating in any tender of the respondent in future. Aggrieved of the above, the disputes between the parties were referred to arbitration under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre.

4. Before the learned Arbitrator the appellant prayed for the following reliefs:

" (a declare the action of the Respondent authorities as taken by them vide letter dated 20.2.2018, for cancelling/terminating the purchase order /contract No. 5-C/1/2016-ARII (Tech.)/ PBT/ 262 for forfeiting the security deposit and blacklisting and debarring for a period of three years, being null and void and unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same be quashed accordingly and directions be issued to take supply of the 3450 PBTs by complying with the terms and conditions of the contract as per the LOI dated 13.7.2017 and agreement dated 30.8.2017;

(b) declare the action of the Respondent No.2 vide his communication dated 23.2.2018, for invocation of the Bank Guarantee, as null and void and directions be issued to return the Bank Guarantee being B.G. No.0262BG000162017 for a sum of Rs. 17,30,124.31 to the claimant

(c) award a sum of Rs. 10,95,98,851/- in favour of the Claimant against the Respondents with the pendent lite interest @ 18 % per annum till its realization;

(d) award the cost of the present proceedings" (Emphasis supplied)

5. The learned Arbitrator vide the Award dated 13.03.2019 was pleased to set aside the termination order dated 20.02.2018 of the respondent, including the invocation of the Bank Guarantee as also the action of debarring the appellant. The learned Arbitrator also granted specific performance of the contract in the following terms:

"In view of the above, the Respondent - AAI is directed to carry out a one-time pre-dispatch inspection of the balance 3,100 stainless steel PBT's, allegedly available at the premises of the contractor/Claimant BSS Ltd., at Kolkata, after giving an advance notice to the Claimant - BSS Ltd., within four weeks from the date of receipt of the instant Award. For such of these (-3,100 stainle

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