UNION OF INDIA Vs. PEEKAY INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA No. 9528/2000 (under Sections 16, 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 read with Section 151 CPC) 1. The present objections are directed against an award dated 28.7.1999, passed by the Sole Arbitrator in respect of the disputes between the parties.

(2.) IN a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the petitioner claimant entered into an agreement dated 8.6.1990, with the respondent contractor for supply of 8,000 helmet combat fibre glass against work contract dated 27.10.1989. The period for the supply was valid from 20.9.1989 to 19.9.1990. The respondent offered Stores for inspection on 26.7.1990, which were rejected on 21.9.1990. The respondent made a request for extension of time which was acceded to by the petitioner claimant and the time period for delivery was extended, as per the amendment letter dated 22.11.1990. The stores offered on the second occasion were accepted only to the extent of 2130 helmets on 1.2.1991. A second extension was sought by the respondent contractor and the period for delivery was extended upto 31.3.1991.

(3.) THUS , three claims were raised by the petitioner claimant before the Sole Arbitrator. The first claim was towards the extra amount spent by the petitioner claimant for a sum of Rs. 3,25,753/ - for purchasing 5870 number of helmet combat fibre glass of confirmed specification, the second claim was towards interest claimed by the petitioner claimant @ 18% p.a. from the date of payment till realization and the third claim was towards costs. All the aforesaid claims were rejected by the impugned award passed by the Sole Arbitrator who held that claim No. 1 was liable to be rejected on the ground that there was deviation in the risk purchase contract as against the contract of the respondent contractor. In view of the fact that claim No. 1 was rejected, as a consequence thereto, claims No. 2 and 3 were also rejected.