Principle of Estoppel will operate against petitioner.

This Original Petition has been filed to set aside the Award of the second respondent dated 28.4.2003 in Arbitration Case No. 43 of 2002.

O.P.No 492 of 2003:

This Original Petition has been filed to set aside the Award of the second respondent dated 28.4.2003 in Arbitration Case No. 41 of 2002.

O.P.No 493 of 2003:

This Original Petition has been filed to set aside the Award of the second respondent dated 28.4.2003 in Arbitration Case No. 44 of 2002.

O.P.No 501 of 2003:

This Original Petition has been filed to set aside the Award of the second respondent dated 28.4.2003 in Arbitration Case No. 40 of 2002.

2. In all the above four Original Petitions, the dispute involved, the parties to the agreement and the facts of the cases are one and the same excepting a few deviation on facts. Therefore, a common order is passed. In fact, the petitioner-Company in all the four Original Petitions have filed a common counter statement before the Arbitrator in the four separate claims made by the first respondent. For the sake of convenience, I am referring to the facts available in Original Petition No. 491 of 2003.

3. The petitioner-Company entered into a lease agreement with the first respondent for a period of five years commencing from 21.12.1998 and ending with 1.12.2003 for the purchase of 1996 Model IMP Telecom Equipment. The total rental lease amount is Rs. 73,10,405, under this agreement which was repayable in 60 monthly instalments. The petitioner Company has been regular in making the lease rent payments on a monthly basis. However, due to recession in the Telecom Industry and drastic fall in the export market, the petitioner-Company could not meet its obligations in making the lease rent payments since February, 2002.

4. The first respondent sent a notice dated 20.7.2001 for settlement of the outstanding rental lease amounts and in the event of failure to pay the amount, the first respondent threatened to recover the equipment financed by them. The petitioner sent a reply by its letter dated 2.8.2001 and the first respondent sent another letter dated 5.10.2001 claiming a sum of Rs.46,29,265 on account of lease rentals to be paid to them. As disputes arose between the petitioner and the first respondent, it was referred to the second respondent for Arbitration as per Clause 33 of the Lease Agreement. In the meanwhile-, the first respondent filed Section 9 Application in this Court and this Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to seize the equipment and now the said equipments are in possession of the Advocate Commissioner. The second respondent, after perusing the documentary evidence adduced before him, passed an award on 28.4.2003 in favour of the first respondent for Rs.51,94,443 together with interest at 18% per annum.

5. Challenging the Award dated 28.4.2003, the above Original Petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

6. The following grounds were raised in the petition to assail the Award:

(1) The second respondent is wrong in passing the Award that the lessor, the first respondent herein, is eligible for the benefit of future lease rentals and also for the equipment, which is not in the possession of the petitioner;

(2) The petitioner is only a bailee and the hire charges are payable only for such period during petitioner-bailee;

(3) The first respondent ought to have terminated all the agreements as equipment was repossessed and hence the claim made by the first respondent was untenable in law;

(4) The second respondent erred in passing 30% compensation charges, when there is no need for the same;

(5) The second respondent has failed to note that Clauses 24(e)(i) and 24(e)(ii) in the agreement are mutually exclusive and both cannot be invoked together;

(6) The Award granting liquidated damages is clearly against Section 74 of the Contract Act.

7. A counter-statement has been filed by the first respondent supporting the Award.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while re