O R D E R

The claimant before the arbitral Tribunal has invoked the Jurisdiction of this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the award passed by the sole arbitrator on 13.11.2017. The brief facts that has culminated in the filing of the above petition are as follows:

Claimant's Case:

2. On 14.07.2008, the respondent has issued two tender notices.

The first tender was with reference to Heavy Thermo Pressed Plates. The second tender was with reference to the Light Thermo Pressed Plates. The tender purchase committee awarded the bid to the petitioner on 30.09.2008. As per the terms of the tender the manufacture and supply by the petitioner was determined by the supply of raw-material by the respondent. The petitioner on successfully bidding for the tender had borrowed from the bank and had placed the order for supply of a new hydraulic press of 12,000 ton capacity.

3. The petitioner would submit that the respondent caused a delay in the release of dies. The petitioner therefore sent two letters dated 01.01.2009 and 05.03.2009 requesting permission to examine the dies. Ultimately, the dies were delivered on 29.04.2009 nearly six months after the supply order. The receipt of the dies was also communicated by the petitioner to the respondent vide letter dated 30.04.2009. While so, on 24.06.2009, the respondent informed the petitioner that as per the terms of the Ministry of Defence all the supply orders and related activities had been put on hold for the present, until further orders. This order was challenged before the High Court of Delhi and by order dated 05.03.2010 the order passed by the Ministry of Defence was set aside.

4. The petitioner would submit that on account of the putting on hold order they had suffered a huge loss. Though the High Court of Delhi had set aside of putting on hold the order on 05.03.2010, the hold order was withdrawn only on 09.04.2010.

5. Considering the delay that had been caused by reason of the above procedure, the petitioner requested the respondent to re-fix the delivery period vide their letter dated 22.04.2010 upto the period 30.06.2011. The respondent by their letter dated 08.06.2010 re-fixed the delivery period from 30.04.2010 to 30.03.2011.

6. On the one hand, while the respondent had re-fixed the delivery period, on the other, they had on 07.04.2010 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking a response as to why the contract should not be cancelled, why the petitioner should not be black listed and why the petitioner should not be debarred from any contract with the Government and also as to why the loss could not be recovered from them. The said notice came as a bolt from the blue as far as the petitioner was concerned. The petitioner vide their letter dated

10.05.2010 had requested the respondent to give details of the basis on which the show cause notice had been issued as also the copies of the documents that had led to the above show cause notice. Despite receiving the said documents the respondent did not come forward to give necessary information and documents. The respondent would contend that the petitioner had adopted illegal methods to secure the tender.

7. On 13.08.2010, the petitioner had addressed the respondent stating that the Hydraulic press was nearing completion and asking them as to whether raw material was available. This letter was followed by two more show cause notices dated 22.12.2010 from the respondent also on the ground of illegal gratification for securing the contract. The petitioner had sent a detailed reply to the same vide reply dated 27.01.2011. However, the respondent had proceeded to pass an order dated 05.03.2012 cancelling the contract, threatening re-tendering at risk and cost of the petitioner and debarring the petitioner from dealing with the Ordnance Factory, Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence, Government of India. The order had been issued on the basis of the show cause notice alleg