VIVEK JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE award passed by the learned Arbitrator dated 27th January 1999 is the subject matter of challenge of this petition under Section 30 and 43 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the respondent invited tenders for disposal of "b"-Thermal Power Station at Raj ghat (DESU ). The claimant (the present petitioner) also filed tenders and offered a sale value of Rs. 1,61,11,007/ -. The contract placed on the claimant firm for disposal of thermal power station on 23rd December 1986. The claimant was to deposit sale value for the plant within the stipulated period. Rs. 1 lac was the earnest money deposited by the claimant. The claimant failed to deposit the sale value by due date and the contract was cancelled at claimant's risk. The second tender was floated for sale of the plant. The claimant again participated in the tenders for re-sale opened on 10th December 1987. This time, the claimant had quoted the sale price of Rs. 1, 65,61,007/ -. The claimant had also furnished a security of Rs. 1 lac. The claimant was to pay the amount of sale value of the thermal power station in a phased manner as provided in the contract. The claimant again failed to deposit the sale value despite several extensions granted to him and ultimately the contract was cancelled at claimant's risk on 16th September 1988. However, before cancellation of the contract, the claimant had deposited a sum of Rs. 44,06,251/- with the respondent. After cancellation of this contract, the third resale tenders were opened on 29. 09. 1988 wherein the claimant firm again quoted the price but this time, the contract was not awarded to the claimant as the price quoted by M/s SSJ Hawra was Rs. 1,71,09,999/ -. The claimant raised a dispute about refund of amount which was referred to the arbitrator. In the claim, the claimant asked for claim of Rs. 72,44,585/- with 18% interest per annum from 1. 1. 1991. Details of claim are as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_560_ILRDLH17_2008Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) THE arbitrator allowed claim Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) but did not allow claim No. iv of damages. He also allowed the interest @ 18% per annum with effect from 23. 09. 1991 till the realization of the amount. A counter claim was also filed by the respondent with the arbitrator but the arbitrator disallowed the counter claim observing that the respondent has raised the counter claim of rs. 26,601/- and the same had already been rejected by the previous arbitrator vide award dated 23rd September 1991 and there was no additional counter claim.