NARENDRA AND CO Vs. BRIG SUDHIR KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (ORAL) The application for placing on record the documents is allowed. OMP No.361/2007

(2.) Respondent no.2 placed an order with the petitioner dated 31.3.2000 for Safety Fuse. The goods were supplied by the petitioner. Another order was also placed for additional quantities. The agreement between the parties contained the standard arbitration clause and since disputes arose between the parties, Brig. Sudhir Kumar was appointed as the sole arbitrator vide an order of respondent no.2 dated 24.5.2006 to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The arbitrator passed an award dated 28.3.2007 rejecting the claim of the petitioner, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It is this award which is sought to be challenged by the petitioner under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

(3.) In order to appreciate the scope of the challenge, certain facts need to be set out. The documents placed on record show that initially an advertisement dated 5.11.1999 was issued for such Safety Fuse and a supply order was placed on the petitioner for 8,84,000 meters Safety Fuse. It appears that an urgent requirement was felt for an additional quantity of such fuse and it is in those circumstances that a letter dated 4.1.2000 was addressed by the petitioner referring to the aforesaid and stating that during the course of price negotiation for supply of the original amount of 8,84,000 meters Safety Fuse, they were given to understand that there was additional urgent requirement of 5,00,000 meters of such Safety Fuse. The petitioner requested for placement of the order for the same with them at a discounted unit price of Rs.18.50 per meter. In response to the said letter, respondent no.2 addressed a letter dated 6.3.2000 to the petitioner stating that the offer of the petitioner for supply of additional quantity at a discounted unit price of Rs.18.50 per meter was under active consideration of the Ministry but the competent authority desired the confirmation of the petitioner of accepting this price provisionally as the maximum ceiling price which would thereafter be finalised based on a cost study by the department. The petitioner, in turn, confirmed the same vide a letter dated 8.3.2000.