Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1303
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, C.J., DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Rungta Projects Ltd., through its duly authorized representative Sri Kamal Kishore Prasad, son of Sri Lala Hari Kishore Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director – Respondent
Commercial Appeal No. 4 of 2023
Decided On : 08-04-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate, Mr. Arpit Khandelwal, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate, Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Waiver principles emphasize binding effects of authorized communications, limiting claims to amended terms unless formally contested, as upheld in arbitration contexts.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Commercial dispute regarding transportation contract - Appellant claimed for payment discrepancy post-extension of the contract - Arbitrator ruled in its favor for a final bill payout, prompting the appellant to challenge the decision subsequent to award - Court assessed waiver principles and arbitration award's adherence to legal standards. (Paras 2, 22, 28, 41, 46)
(B) Waiver - A waiver may be retracted under certain conditions; in this scenario, the court noted the principles outlined in Halsbury's and previous judgments but found that the appellant had effectively waived claims based on prior communications. (Paras 41-46)
Facts of the case:
The case involves disputes regarding a transportation contract initially awarded to the appellant, contested by a following tender leading to claims of improper payment withholding and later arbitration. The appellant's claims were based on contract expiration, non-participation in new tenders, and assertions of rights to past contract terms. (Paras 3-12, 15-19)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Commercial Court's decision to not interfere with the Arbitrator's award, affirming that while some procedural discussions were lacking, the final judgment regarding payment terms maintained validity under arbitration standards. (Paras 44-48)
Issues: The core issues included whether the appellant's claims were barred by waiver or limitation and the validity of the claimed rates against the awarded lower rates. (Paras 22, 27)
Ratio Decidendi: The court dismissed claims of waiver retraction due to insufficient legal grounding, stating that waivers made via authorized representation were binding until formally contested. The appraisal of the arbitration award confirmed that the legal standards were met throughout the decision-making process. (Paras 46-48)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against arbitration award. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of contract and disputes. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. appellant's claims and arguments. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. respondent's defenses against claims. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. arbitrator's findings and award. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 6. appellant's application against arbitrator's award. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. commercial court's observations on rates. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 8. commercial court's findings on evidence. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37) |
| 9. arguments on waiver retraction and estoppel. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 10. court's findings on waiver and award interference. (Para 47 , 48) |
| 11. conclusion and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 49) |
JUDGMENT :
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
1. This Commercial Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dt. 29.09.2020 passed in Original Suit No.50 of 2018 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the award dt. 30.08.2014 of the learned Arbitrator.
2. The case was initially filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Cum Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh, as Misc. Case No.30 of 2014 and it was then transferred to the Commercial Court at Dhanbad through an Order No.80 of 2018 dt. 26.03.2018 passed by the Principal District Judge, Hazaribagh.
Background facts
3. The respondent had floated an NIT dt. 02.08.1996 with respect to work of transportation of coal and washery products from various projects/mines/units of Kuju and Hazaribagh Area of the respondent for two years.
4. The contract was awarded to the appellant and agreements were executed and later Work Orders were also issued.
5. The contract expired on 31.10.1999, after which, the respondent issued a fresh tender on 10.09.1999 for a fresh period of two years.
6. The date of opening of the fresh tender was 14.10.1999. In the tender issued on 10.09.1999, the grant was purportedly made to a bidder M/s. Essem Transporter & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. on a lower rate than that applicable or payable under the previous tender dt. 02.08.1996.
7. The appellant did not participate in the said tender.
8. A Letter of Intent had been issued in favour of M/s. Essem Transporter & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. on 28.04.2000. But it alleged that it was compelled to execute work under the NIT dt. 10.09.1999 by imposing penal and coercive consequences and approached this Court through a writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 1344 of 2000 and succeeded in L.P.A. No. 167 of 2002 on 08.07.2002.
9. This Court held that that the respondent cannot force the said party to execute the contract and so the award of work to the said party was struck down. Thus due to above litigation, the finalization of the new tender dt.10.9.1999 did not take place.
10. In order to meet the exigencies, the respondent decided to make an ad-hoc arrangement by extending the contract granted to the appellant previously, though it had expired on 31.10.1999.
11. The respondent requested the appellant to continue the transportation of coal beyond the period of contract through a letter dt. 30.10.1999 stating that since the period of the appellant’s contract was up to 31.10.1999, it is extended from 01.11.1999 on condition that that the rate applicable would be either current rate (i.e. existing contract rate) and/or lowest acceptable rate of new tender, whichever is lower.
12. The appellant executed the work till 28.04.2000 and from that date, another tenderer did the work.
13. The appellant also filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 5862 of 2002 making certain claims against the respondents, but later, withdrew the same and invoked the arbitration clause through a notice dt. 17.03.2008 to the respondent requesting for action to be taken under Clause 95 of the GTC for settlement of the claim.
14. When no action was taken, the appellant filed Arbitration Application No.29 of 2008 and ini
