JUDGEMENT

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, assailing the Impugned Order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP (COMM) No. 176/2017 titled ―M/s BPL Ltd. v. M/s Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd.‖, whereby the learned Single Judge upheld the arbitral award dated 14.12.2016 to the extent that it directs the appellant to make payments to the respondent/claimant under all Bills of Exchange and proportionate interest thereon, except for one Bill of Exchange bearing No. OMR-35, which claim was given up by the respondent otherwise too.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, one M/s BPL Display Device Ltd./BDDL had sold certain goods to the appellant herein/BPL over a period of time. As there arose some issues of timely payments, the buyer and seller companies viz., BPL and BDDL, together approached the respondent for extending a bill discounting facility to BDDL, to which the respondent agreed. Accordingly, the bill discounting facility was sanctioned by the respondent vide letters dated 27.12.2002 (to the extent of Rs. 6 crores) and 11.06.2003 (to the extent of Rs. 6.5 crores).

It would be apposite to bring to the fore, some relevant terms of the Sanction Letters, as mutually agreed between the parties:

 The said Sanction Letters referred to BDDL as the ‗Drawer‘ and the appellant/BPL as the ‗Drawee‘.

 It was provided that the ―Bill of Exchange /Hundi shall be with recourse to Drawer.‖  The repayment of the amount was mutually agreed to be both the responsibility of the drawer/BDDL and drawee/appellant jointly and severally.

 The facility was approved at a concessional rate of interest i.e.,

22.5% per annum payable upfront as against the normal agreed rate of interest i.e., 36% per annum but in case of default in making payment on its due dates, the concessional rates would stand withdrawn and the normal rate of interest i.e., @ 36% per annum would become payable.

1 Arbitration Act

 The bill discounting period was up to 150 days.

 As per the Sanction Letter dated 11.06.2003, one M/s Electronic Research Pvt. Ltd./ERPL stood surety for the repayment of Rs. 6,43,32,301/- in the event the drawer and drawee failed to repay the amount due in term of sanction letter dated 11.06.2003. In pursuance of the same, ERPL furnished a ‗Comfort letter‘ along with PDCs guaranteeing repayment of the amounts due and payable to the respondent/claimant.

3. However, dispute between the parties arose when a sum of Rs.25,79,91,096/- against particular Bills of Exchange became due and payable to the respondent/claimant by BPL and BDDL in 2004, which amount they defaulted in repaying despite several reminders on behalf of the respondent/claimant. It is stated that during the subsistence of the contract, BDDL along with ERPL had issued post-

dated cheques (PDCs) to discharge their respective partial contractual liabilities towards the respondent/claimant. However, BPL allegedly requested the claimant to not encash the said cheques and assured the respondent/claimant that given some more time, they would make arrangements for the payments. The respondent/claimant, in good faith, considered the requests and upon assurances of BDDL, did not present the cheques for encashment.

4. After an extension of time to make the payments was sought, admittedly, the appellant/BPL made two payments to the respondent herein vide Demand Drafts dated 08.08.2005 and 29.08.2005 both drawn on Bank of India for a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- each, and it is stated that such amounts were adjusted by the respondent/claimant towards seven Bills of Exchange drawn pursuant to the Sanction Letter dated 11.06.2003, the details of which are reproduced hereinbelow:

5. However, despite the assurances extended by the appellant/BPL