MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Vs. CARRYCON INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 13(2)of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015(hereinafter referred to as the 'Commercial Courts Act') is directed against the order dated 09.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in O.M.P (COMM) No. 288/2016, whereby the objections to the Arbitral Award dated 30.12.2015 passed by the Sole arbitrator were dismissed.

(2.) Before dealing with the rival submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, we deem it appropriate to set out basic facts which led to the dispute between the parties as noted by the Learned Single Judge. Relevant portion reads as under:-

(3.) Upon conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, the Arbitral Award dated 30.12.2015 was passed by the Sole Arbitrator whereby an Award for a sum of Rs. 2,36,11929.26 was directed to be paid to the claimant by the respondent company/MTNL on account of the balance differential bills which were not paid and the security amount. A sum of Rs.2,06,10,302.96 was awarded in favour of claimant and against MTNL on account of pendente lite simple interest calculated @ 10% per annum from the date of filing claim petition with future interest @12% per annum from date of award till the payments were made. Objections to the award dated 30.12.2015 filed by MTNL were considered by learned Single Judge in OMP (COMM) No. 288/2016 and by way of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge held that the letter dated 3.07.2003 constituted a counter offer as it did not unconditionally accept the terms as stated by Carrycon in its letter dated 17.05.2003 and upheld the award on this aspect. However learned Single Judge modified the rate of laying of the cables @ of Rs.230/- per meter instead on Rs. 412/- per meter during the extended period from 25.1.2004 on the basis of letter dated 4.01.2004 issued by the claimant to MTNL. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, MTNL has filed the present appeal.