PUSHKAR PAINT INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed objections (IA No.352/2001) in respect of the award dated 28.04.2000 made by the sole arbitrator (Mr D.R. Gupta, Chief Manager Information Technology, Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala). Objections have also been filed on behalf of the respondent (Railways) being IA.No. 355/2001. The petitioner was only aggrieved with regard to the rejection of its claims towards interest. However, Mr Shiv Khorana, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, now states that he is ready and willing to give up this objection. The only question, therefore, that survives for consideration are the objections of the respondent as contained in IA 353/2001. On 24.03.2005, the following issues were framed :

(2.) In order to decide the said issues, it would be necessary to narrate the sequence of events leading to the making of the award. On 26.08.1993 the respondent placed an order on the petitioner for supply of 85,377 ltrs of paint at the price of Rs 34.22 p per liter. According to the purchase order, the petitioner was to supply 18000 ltrs. per month and to complete the entire supply by 31.3.1994. On 17.11.1993 the respondent sought to change the delivery period by issuing a letter of that date. According to the letter dated 17.11.1993 the delivery schedule was to be altered so as to ensure supplies of 35,377 ltrs of paint by 31.3.1994 and the balance 50,000 ltrs of paint by 30.6.1994. However, the petitioner did not agree to this change in the delivery schedule and, therefore, the original schedule was maintained.

(3.) On 14.12.1993, 6000 ltrs of paint was supplied and by 31.3.1994 the petitioner had supplied a total quantity of 55,200 ltrs of paint. On 15.4.1994 a letter was written by the respondent to the petitioner not to make any further supplies. Subsequently, the respondent changed its mind and on 22.4.1994 issued a letter to the petitioner requiring it to supply the remaining quantity of approximately 30,000 Its of paint in 5 equal installments of 6000 ltrs each month commencing from June and ending in Nov., 1994. On 27.4.1994, the respondent sought to reduce the price of the paint. The petitioner did not agree to this. Thereafter, the respondent also withdrew its request for reducing the price and permitted the petitioner to supply further quantities. On 4.6.1994,12000 ltrs of paint were supplied by the petitioner to the respondent which they ultimately accepted in July 1994. However, 18000 ltrs of paint which were also sent along with the same supply were returned by the respondent. In Sept., 1994 the respondent indicated to the petitioner that they were now willing to accept 18,000 ltrs of paint, provided the same was delivered by 31.3.1995. However, the petitioner did not accept this request and submitted its claim for arbitration.