Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:1894-DB

FAO (COMM) 48/2023

$~01

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 14.03.2023

+

FAO (COMM) 48/2023 & CM APPLS. 9032-34/2023

THE INDIA GOVERNMENT MINT

..... APPELLANT

versus

ALFA SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES ..... RESPONDENT

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant:

Mr. Kamal Kant Jha and Mr. Avinash Singh,

Advocates.

For the Respondent:

None.

CORAM:-

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1.

Appellant impugns order dated 20.10.2022, whereby the

objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging

the Award dated 05.11.2020 of the Arbitral Tribunal have been

dismissed.

2.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned District

Digitally Signed

By:RASHIM KAPOOR

Signing Date:16.03.2023

15:00:00

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:1894-DB

FAO (COMM) 48/2023

Judge has erred in rejecting the objections by merely holding that the

objections do not fall within the parameters of interference as

explicitly laid down by the Supreme Court in several judgments

referred to in the order.

3.

He submits that the learned District Jude has erred in not

appreciating that the Arbitral Tribunal has returned contradictory

findings of fact. He submits that on the one hand the Tribunal has

held that the respondent/claimant was at fault and on the other hand

held that the respondent/claimant has not committed any breach of

contract.

4.

Learned counsel for appellant further submits that the

respondent/claimant had filed a writ petition before the High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad impugning the invocation of the subject Bank

Guarantee and the writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter, a writ

appeal was filed and the Division Bench in Writ Appeal

No.1198/2016 by judgment dated 10.11.2016 held that the clauses of

the NIT would apply even for the extended period of contract even

though no formal document was executed.

5.

Appellant had invited bids on 15.02.2013 for hiring skilled and

unskilled manpower for one year through outsourcing agency on as

and when required basis. The bid of the respondent was successful

and a Letter of Intent dated 24.05.2013 was issued, valid for a period

of one year from 01.06.2013 till 31.05.2014.

Digitally Signed

By:RASHIM KAPOOR

Signing Date:16.03.2023

15:00:00

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:1894-DB

FAO (COMM) 48/2023

6.

The Letter of Intent specifically stated that 21 skilled labour and

69 unskilled labour would be required to be supplied by the

respondent. The bifurcation of the skilled and unskilled workers into

different fields, inter-alia, electrician, cook, plumber, carpenter,

welder etc. was specifically mentioned in the Letter of Intent. The

Letter of Intent, however, clarified that the maximum number of

skilled labour would not exceed 21 and unskilled labour would not

exceed 69.

7.

It is not in dispute that the respondent duly complied with the

terms and conditions of the Letter of Intent and supplied the workers

for the entire period of one year, however, one of the contentions

raised by the respondent was that though the tender was for supply of

90 workmen, order was placed only for supply of approximately 40

workmen throughout the period of one year.

8.

The Letter of Intent further stipulated that the contract could be

extended on the same terms and conditions for a further period of

three months or till execution of a new contract, whichever was

earlier.

9.

In alleged exercise of power under the said clause, a letter of

extension was given on 29.05.2014, extending the contract for a

period of three months. The letter, however, specified that the

maximum number of workers would be 40 workers i.e., 10 skilled and