IN

IN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY

ORDINARY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

ARBITRATION

ARBITRATION

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 98 OF 2005.

PETITION NO. 98 OF 2005.

PETITION NO. 98 OF 2005.

The Municipal Corporation of

Greater Mumbai, a statutory

Corporation incorporated under

the provisions of the Mumbai

Municipal Corporation Act, 1888

having its office at Mahapalika

Bhavan, Mahapalika Marg,

Mumbai 400 001.

... Petitioner.

Versus.

Gammon India Limited,

a company incorporated under the

provisions of the Companies Act,

I of 1956, having its office at

Gammon House, Veer Savarkar Marg,

Prabhadevi, P.O.Box No. 9129,

Mumbai 400 025.

... Respondents.

Shri Ramesh Dhanuka with Shri H.C.Pimple i/b Shri

Ujjainwala, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri Atul Setalvad, Senior Counsel with Shri Shiraz

Rustomjee i/by Subodh Kurdukar, Advocate the

Respondents.

CORAM

CORAM

CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J.

: ABHAY S.OKA, J.

: ABHAY S.OKA, J.

DATE

DATE

DATE ON WICH ARGUMENTS ARE

ON WICH ARGUMENTS ARE

ON WICH ARGUMENTS ARE

CONCLUDED.

CONCLUDED.

CONCLUDED.

::: 7th September, 2007.

7th September, 2007.

7th September, 2007.

DATE

DATE

DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS

ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS

ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS

PRONOUNCED.

PRONOUNCED.

PRONOUNCED.

::: 22nd October, 2007.

22nd October, 2007.

22nd October, 2007.

JUDGMENT.:

JUDGMENT.:

JUDGMENT.:

1.

By this petition under section 34 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter

referred to as "the said Act of 1996") initially an

Award dated 15th September 2004 made by the learned

::: 2 :

2 :

2 :

Arbitrators was challenged. In this petition, an order

was passed on 21st March 2006 by which hearing of this

petition was adjourned for a period of 12 weeks to

enable the Arbitral Tribunal to resume the proceedings

and to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

The said order was passed in Arbitration Petition No.1

of 2006 filed by the Respondents. On the basis of the

said order learned Arbitral Tribunal resumed the

proceedings and supplementary award was made on 14th

October 2006. By amending this petition, the Petitioner

has been permitted to challenge the said supplementary

award.

2.

Before adverting to the submissions made by the

learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it will be

necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief.

3.

The Petitioner is the Municipal Corporation of

Greater Mumbai. In the year 1998 the Petitioner invited

tenders for supply, installation, testing and

commissioning of mechanical equipments for Bandra

Sewerage Pumping Station. Five bids were received from

various bidders including the bid of the Respondents.

The Respondents quoted their bid at Rs.16,85,00,000/-.

The bid form submitted by the Respondents included some

attachments and in paragraph 16.0 of the form, the

Respondents demanded reimbursement of actual sales tax

::: 3 :

3 :

3 :

amount paid by them against production of documentary

evidence. The Respondents submitted along with the bid

form the attachment 10 in which a declaration was given

that no sales tax in any form shall be payable by the

Petitioner-Corporation for the bought out items. On

15th March 1999 the Petitioner-Corporation called upon

the Respondents to clarify the various issues in the bid

form. The Respondents clarified the issues and withdrew

condition No.16.0. After obtaining approval of the

Standing Committee on 10th December 1999, the contract

agreement was executed by the Petitioner-Corporation in

favour of the Respondents.

4.

According to the case of the Petitioner-

Corp