RPG CABLES LIMITED Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.11.2012 setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Appellant ("RPG") is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of PIJF U/G Telecommunication Cables. It entered into a contract with the Respondent, (the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, (hereafter "MTNL") pursuant to a tender issued by the latter (MTNL/20-80(66)/98-99/98-MM/PIJF) dated 04.05.1998, for supply of specific quantities of Polythene Insulated Jelly filled Underground Telecom Cables (PIJF) at Delhi and Mumbai. As far as the present dispute is concerned, MTNL sent a Letter of Intent (LOI No. MTNL/20-80(66)/98-99/98-MM/PIJF/RPG) dated 21.10.1998 to RPG, which was duly accepted on 28.10.1998, for the supply of the telecom cables. In its reply, however, RPG noted:

(2.) Thus, from the original timetable where the entire supply was to be dispatched within six months, i.e. 30.04.1999, with the quantities evenly distributed for each month of the period of supply, RPG requested that the timetable be amended to commence on 01.01.1999, and that the supply be allowed in four equal monthly instalments concluding on 30.04.1999. This request was accepted by MTNL in its letter dated 18.12.1998, and the delivery schedule for the purchase order was amended. Later, MTNL issued a memorandum (MTNL/20-80{66(6)}/98-99/98-MM/PIJF/RPG) dated 02.02.1999, by which it unilaterally amended the delivery schedule, returning to the original schedule before RPG's request.

(3.) By MTNL's letter of 08.03.1999, a request was made for the supply of 1200/0.5mm (A) cables in March, 1999 instead of April, 1999, as originally scheduled. RPG agreed to supply these cables by its letter dated 10.03.1999 and in addition requested that some other specified quantities of certain cable sizes, which were due in March 1999 to be simultaneously postponed till April 1999, without any liquidated damages. MTNL agreed to such postponement (though without any reference to the question of liquidated damages) through its letter dated 12.03.1999. Later, the entire purchase order was met by RPG in terms of the schedule in MTNL's letter dated 18.12.1998, with the modifications agreed upon by the parties in terms of MTNL's letter dated 12.03.1999.