The court affirmed that limited judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act does not allow for re-evaluation of arbitration awards unless they are demonstrably perverse, illegal, or devoid of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petition has been instituted under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , A&C Act, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking setting aside of the Arbitral Award dated 11.03.2016 , Impugned Award passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.

2. The challenge in the present proceedings is directed primarily against the findings recorded in the Impugned Award, in particular those relating to the adjudication of Claims A to E. The Petitioner seeks to assail the conclusions arrived at by the learned Arbitrator under these heads. The relevant extract of the Impugned Award pertaining to Claims A to E is reproduced hereunder:

“Claims A to E

The main question before the Tribunal, therefore, is whether the claimant is entitled to be paid @ Rs.4273 per line on account of it having completed the supplies by 28th February 1995 or it is entitled to be paid @ Rs.4145 per line due to its having not completed the supplies by 28th February 1995 because of GD Tubes having been supplied only in July, 1995. The question is as to whether by non-supply of GD tubes of the value of Rs.19,15,552 out of the total contract of more than Rs.39 crore, the supplies were not complete in all respects up to 28th February 1995 and even assuming, supplies were not completed, because of non-supply of GD tubes, whether the claimant has suffered any loss so as to entitle it not to make payment @ Rs.4273 per line.

As already mentioned above, supplies were complete in all respects except that a small item of GD tubes of the value of Rs.19,15,552 were not supplied for Delhi MTNL. The supplies were to be made in Mumbai as well as in Delhi. MTNL on 29^th March 1996 had issued a letter to the DGM (Engg.) Mumbai as well as DGM (ETF) Delhi referring to the purchase order and stating that consequent upon a reduction in the customs duty, the Department of Telecommunications had finalized prices on the basis of per line cost @ Rs.4273 for supplies made up to 31^st March 1995 and Rs.4145 for supplies made after 31^st March 1995. While the Mumbai office of MTNL by its letter dated 12^th June 1996 confirmed that all supplies of 50,000 lines to Mumbai were completed by 31^st March 1995, the Delhi office by its letter dated 12 March 1997 wrote that supply of the entire 50,000 line equipment was received before 31 March 1995 except Gas Discharge (GD) tubes valued at Rs. 19,15,552 which were supplied on 12" July 1995. The amended clause 10.0(b) of the purchase order provided that the purchaser shall be entitled to the benefit of any decrease in price on account of reduction in or remission of customs duty, excise duty, sales tax or on account of any other tax or duty which takes place after the expiry of the initial delivery period mentioned in the purchase order. It was in these circumstances that a letter was written to the Delhi and Mumbai offices of MTNL to inform whether complete supplies had been received by 31^st March 1995. The rationale was that in case complete supplies were not made and in the meantime customs duty had been reduced, the respondent would be entitled to the benefit of such decrease in the customs duty, Both Delhi and Mumbai offices wrote that supplies in all respects were complete by 31^st March 1995 except that in case of supplies to Delhi, a small item of GD tubes of the value of Rs. 19,15,552 was received in July 1995. Any decrease in customs duty during the extended delivery period would entitle MTNL to claim reduction only in the price of that item of which the cust