Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:32 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ARBA No. 21 of 2023 (From the judgment dated 3.8.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Arbitration Petition No. 4 of 2020arising out of arbitration award dated 19.5.2020 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator Retd. Justice Deepak Verma of the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre)

M/s Bhadra Products, Mumbai …. Appellant (s)

-versus-

M/s Indian Farmers Fertilizer …. Respondent (s)

Cooperative Ltd., Jagatsinghpur Advocates appeared in the cases:

For Appellant (s) : Mr. Nilamadhab Bisoi, Adv.

-versus-

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarada Prasanna Sarangi,Adv.

Mr. Sanjay Grover, Adv.

CORAM:

DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-03.12.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-30.01.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. This Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‚A&C Act‛) has been filed seeking setting aside of the judgment dated 03.08.2023 passed by Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:32 the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Arbitration Petition No. 4 of 2020.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The present dispute arises over a contract of supply of defoaming agent for manufacturing of phosphoric acid. The Appellant Company is a manufacturer and seller of POLYCOL PF-140, a Defoaming agent, amongst other chemicals. The present Respondent Company required a defoaming agent for the production of phosphoric acid in its plant. On 7.2.2006, the Respondent Company issued a tender enquiry for the supply of defoamer. A trial run of supply of Defoamer was taken up from bidders including the present Appellant. After an assessment, the Appellant Company was selected for supply of Defoamer to the Respondent Company’s plant.

3. Subsequently, a Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 2.11.2006 and Purchase Order dated 24.1.2007 was issued in favour of the Appellant Company for supply of 800 MT of Defoamer for production of

3,08,880 MT of Phosphoric Acid (P2O5).

4. The Claimant Company claims that payment for the Defoamer supplied to the Respondent to the tune of Rs.6,27,08,886/- apart from interest. The said claim is denied by the Respondent who asserts that no payments are due to the Claimant as all payments as per the agreed upon terms and conditions have been duly paid to the Appellant Company.

Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:32

5. Upon the dispute arising between the parties, the matter was referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). On 15.1.2015, Retd. Justice Deepak Verma sent his formal consent to act as arbitrator in the arbitral proceedings. Accordingly, proceedings commenced with the first sitting being held on 3.3.2015. After hearing the parties, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator was pleased to pass his final award on 19.5.2020 wherein, all the claims of the Claimant were rejected.

6. Aggrieved, the Appellant assailed the final award dated 19.5.2020 under Section 34 of the A&C Act in the Court of the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpurvide Arbitration Petition No. 4 of 2020. Vide judgment dated 3.8.2023in Arbitration Petition No. 4 of 2020 the Ld. District Judge, Jagatsinghpurwas pleased to dismiss the same upon arriving at the conclusion that the award was not in violation of the public policy of India, nor did it contain any plausible fact that would shock the conscience of the court and did not have any patent illegality on the face of the record.

7. It is also pertinent to mention here that during the course of hearing, the challenge under Section 34 of the A&C Act, the Appellant filed a petition under Section 151 of CPC praying for exhibiting three new documents which was rejected by the Ld. District Judge vide order dated 8.7.2022. Thereafter, the Appellant preferred a revision before this Court wherein vide order dated 13.10.2022