MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Vs. HARYANA TELECOM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner challenges the Award dated 16.12.2002 passed by the sole Arbitrator. The Award was passed on account of the disputes which arose between the petitioner as the buyer and the respondent as the supplier of PIJF Underground Cables. The dispute was whether the petitioner could recover the amounts which it claimed to have allegedly over paid in one contract by issuing a debit note and hence recovering the amount from another contract, although the first contract being the subject contract in question was completed to the satisfaction of both the parties. Putting it differently, the issue which arose in the arbitration proceedings was whether there can be an unsettling of the settled price of the contract between the parties many years after the contract has been completely performed.

(2.) THE petitioner floated a tender dated 4.3.1994 for the subject goods being PIJF underground cables. Two purchase orders were issued in favour of the respondent, and which are dated 21.9.1994 and 29.9.1994. Pursuant to these purchase orders, the respondent made the supply of the contracted goods and completed the delivery by the scheduled date of 31.3.1995. The petitioner thereafter made payment of the entire amount to the respondent. The last payment was received by the respondent on 18.1.1996. As already stated, the contract was thus fully performed and executed to the satisfaction of both the parties.

(3.) THE contract between the parties, in a way, left the prices already fixed in the contract, as tentative, because there was the following clause in the contract between the parties:-