The court emphasized the importance of relevant and admissible evidence in arbitration proceedings and highlighted the need for justifiable quantification of damages.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. The appellant has filed the present intra-court appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter `the A&C Act') impugning a judgement dated 01.11.2018 (hereafter `the impugned judgement') in OMP 1195/2012. The respondent had filed the said application (OMP 1195/2021) impugning the arbitral award dated 06.06.2012 (hereafter `the impugned award') under Section 34 of the A&C Act. By the impugned judgement, the learned Single Judge allowed the said application and set aside the impugned award.

Factual Context

2. The appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 19, I.G.I, Gurgaon Road, Kapashera, New-Delhi-110037. It is involved in the business of supply of paper products (that is, fax rolls, computer paper, photocopier paper etc.) to various government departments and their ministries in India under annually renewed rate contracts with the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposal (DGS&D).

3. On 08.09.2000, the respondent awarded the appellant a Rate Contract bearing PP-3/RC-06011800/062000/Photocopier Paper/2000-2001/D-0488/DPPC/158 (hereafter `the contract') for the supply of photocopier paper for the period of 2000-2001.

4. On 21.03.2001, the Controller of Stores (SF) South Central Railway, Secundrabad (hereafter `the consignee') placed the following Supply Orders with the appellant:

5. The contract was short-closed with effect from 08.08.2001, by an amendment dated 27.07.2001. The appellant had made the supplies against the Supply Order no. 90515. However, the supplies made against the said Supply Order were allegedly found to be defective and were returned. The dispute between the parties, essentially, relates to supplies against the Supply Order nos. 90516 and 90517. Whereas the appellant claims that it had made supplies against the said Supply Orders and had collected the said supplies back at the instance of the consignee, the respondent states that the appellant had not made any supplies against those Supply Orders (Supply Order nos. 90516 and 90517). The respondent alleges that although the appellant had not made the supplies, it had collected 95% of the consideration by furnishing inspection notes carrying forged signatures and rubber stamps of the consignee.

6. On 14.11.2022, the respondent issued a show-cause notice making allegations to the aforesaid effect and calling upon the respondent to provide reasons why the business dealings with the appellant should not be banned. The appellant responded to the aforesaid show cause notice. The appellant claimed that it had supplied the goods but, subsequently, the same were returned back. The respondent (Ministry of Commerce and Industry) was not satisfied with the said response and passed an order dated 30.12.2002, effectively blacklisting the appellant and proscribing any commercial/business dealings with the appellant and its subsidiaries, if any. The said order dated 30.12.2002 (hereafter `the Blacklisting Order') was operative for a period of ten years commencing from the date of the order - 30.12.2002.

7. The Blacklisting Order indicates that the respondent had discovered that the appellant had not made supplies against the Supply Orders in question but, on the basis of the forged inspection notes, had collected payments for the said supplies. The appellant had thereafter refunded the amounts so collected. The respondent concluded that the appellant had collected advance payments fraudulently and had also furnished forged inspection notes.

8. The appellant assailed the Blacklisting Order by filing a petition before this Court (CWP No. 583/2003). The said writ petition was rejected by the learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 28.02.2003. The appellant preferred an appeal a