$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 24.05.2024 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 101/2024 and CM Nos.31320/2024 &

31321/2024 AKSH OPTIFIBRE LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Mr Vikas Goel, Mr Ritesh Sharma, Mr Harmanbir Singh Sandhu and Ms Anisha Dahiya, Advocates.

versus NANTONG SIBER COMMUNICATION CO. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr Jitender Chaudhary and Ms Shilpa, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the A&C Act impugning a judgment dated 15.03.2024 (hereafter the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP (COMM) 68/2023 captioned Aksh Optifibre Ltd. v. Nantong Siber Communication Co. Limited. The appellant had filed the said application under Section 34 of the A&C Act impugning an arbitral award dated 08.11.2022 (hereafter the impugned award) passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a sole arbitrator (hereafter the Arbitral Tribunal).

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that had arisen between the parties in connection with certain purchase orders placed by the appellant on the respondent company. There is no dispute that the respondent company had, after receiving the said purchase orders, delivered the goods and had also raised the invoices for the same.

3. The appellant contends that the said goods were in turn supplied to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). However, the payments from BSNL were not forthcoming. It is the appellant’s case that it had apprised the respondent that the goods purchased by it were for manufacturing of optical fiber cable to be supplied to BSNL. The appellant also claimed that it had informed the respondent that there was a delay in receipt of payments from BSNL and the same had resulted in the delay of payments to the respondent. 4. The respondent invoked the arbitration agreement between the parties by issuing a notice requesting for appointment of an arbitrator. It also approached the Supreme Court under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes.

5. By an order dated 15.11.2021 passed by the Supreme Court in Arbitration Petition (C) No. 27/2021, the Supreme Court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

6. The Arbitral Tribunal had found in favour of the respondent and had awarded a sum of USD 194,336.91 along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the due dates of the invoices as set out in paragraph 4 of the impugned award. The relevant portion of paragraph 4 of the impugned Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed award and the dispositive portion of the impugned award is set out below:

“4 The undisputed facts leading to the present dispute are as follows:

xxx xxx xxx (vi) It is an admitted fact that the Respondent defaulted in making payment of an amount of $194336.91 to the Claimant as per the Invoices of the Purchase Orders. The details of the invoices and the amount unpaid by the Respondent are as follows:

S.No. Date	of Invoice	Details of Invoice	Amount due as per Invoice ($)	Date on which payment becomes due (i.e. date of Bill of Lading)	Date on which credit period expires (i.e. 90 days from Bill of Lading)
A	B	C	D	E	F
1.	26.06.2018	AOL-18-3	43322.37	02.07.2018	18.10.2018
2.	20.07.2018	AOL-18-4	35653.20	26.07.2018	24.10.2018
3.	25.07.2018	AOL-18-5	23269.23	01.08.2018	30.10.2018
4.	09.09.2018	AOL-18-7	21934.73	15.09.2018	14.12.2018
5.	21.07.2018	AOL-18-8	31378.16	23.09.2018	22.12.2018
6.	12.10.2018	AOL-18-9	212255.96	16.10.2018	14.01.2019
7.	18.10.2018	AOL-18- 10	28023.26	22.10.2018	20.01.2019
	Total Amt. Payable		204836.91
	(Less)Payment Received		10,500

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed on 26.06.2020 Balance Pending 194336.91

Click Here to Read the rest of this document