UNION OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL CABLES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE award filed by the sole arbitrator Shri Shiv Prakash has been admitted and numbered as suit. THEreafter notices under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act appears to have been issued to the parties. Objections have been filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act on behalf of the claimant-Union of India against the award dated 22.3.1990 which have been numbered as I.A. No.9717 of 1991.

(2.) IT is stated in the objections by the claimant that the award is for an amount of Rs.75,000.00 in favour of the respondent. IT disallows the entire claim of Rs.6,95,014.00 made by the claimant on patently false basis. IT is stated that the award is liable to be set aside because there are patent errors on the face of record. The arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings and misconstrued the evidence by disallowing claim of the claimant for Rs.6,95,014.00 and by allowing the claim of Rs.75,000.00 of the respondent-Central Cables (Pvt.) Ltd. in a highly arbitrary manner. That the arbitrator has neither considered nor appreciated the unrebuttable evidence on record, he has arbitrarily disallowed the total claim of the claimant by ignoring the contractual provisions and documents. The arbitrator has deliberately misinterpreted the risk purchase clause and wrongly concluded, without any factual basis, that the risk purchase contract placed on the respondent was not concluded within the period of six months, as provided under the original contract. That this is wrong on the face of record. That as per the congtract the claimant is entitled to recover the loss suffered by the claimant as the respondent-contractor did not supply the ordered stores against the contract. The claim of the claimant has been disallowed by the arbitrator on patently false ground that the risk purchase contract placed on the respondent was not concluded within a period of six months as provided in the contract. That the notice for cancellation of the contract already placed on the respondent was issued on 16.4.1986 and the risk purchase contract was concluded by issue of A.T. dated. 29.8.1986 accepting the offer of another contractor dated 21.6.1986. As such the concluded contract came into existence on 29.8.1986 which is well within a period of six months. That the arbitrator has not acted judiciously while granting the claim of Rs.75,000.00 in favour of the respondent because the security deposit by the congtractor could be refunded only after satisfactory completion of the contract, which admittedly was never done.

(3.) I have perused the award rendered by the arbitrator. The arbitrator has held that the risk purchase madce by the claimant-Union of India at the risk and cost of the respondents contractor is not legally and contractually valid for the reason that the risk purchase contract placed on M/s. Industrial Cables (India) Ltd. has not been concluded within the period of 6 months as provided under the subject contract in asmuch as the risk purchase contract is stated to have been concluded by issue of Advance R/P A/T dated 29.8.1986 in pursuance of the offer of the firm dated 21.6.186 followed by subseqent correspondence dated 4.8.1986 and 22.8.1986. It is further reasoned that on comparison of the offer of the firm and the advance R/P A/T dated 29.8.1986, the terms and conditions thereof are not identical or similar. Hence, the advance R/P A/T dated 29.8.1986 would be in the nature of counter offer.......... Therefore, the risk purchase contract must have been concluded between the parties within a period of six months i.e. by 31.8.1986. Hence, the risk purchase contract has not been placed upon M/s. Industrial Cables (India) Ltd. within the period as provided under the subject contract placed upon the respondents. It is also stated that the terms of delivery and security deposits were also not identical.