PARDES DEHYDRATION CO. Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUIT No. 638A/2000 was filed for summoning of the Award. The Award has been requisitioned from the Arbitrator. No objections were filed in this Suit No. 638A/2000 and objections were in fact filed by the respondent/Union of India against the Award dated 11.2.2000 in Suit No. 517A/2000 which was a petition filed by the contractor under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. I note that these objections ought to have been numbered as an I.A. but the same have not been numbered. Accordingly, let the Registry give a number to these objections filed by the Union of India under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the contract was awarded by the objector/Union of India to the contractor Pardes Dehydration Company whereby the latter was to supply dehydrated potatoes. The contract in question is dated 23.3.1990 (date of letter of acceptance) and under which a total of 43 metric tonnes(MT) of potatoes were to be supplied in four months viz 10 MT up to 30.4.1990, 10 MT up to 31.5.1990, 13 MT up to 30.6.1990 and the balance 10 MT up to 31.7.1990.

(3.) THE objector, therefore, filed its claim before the Arbitrator on account of having procured the dehydrated potatoes at the risk and cost of the contractor. Before I advert to the merits of the case and the Award I do find it surprising that in a case where the contract in question in fact provides for liquidated damages, the Union of India did not seek liquidated damages but in fact asked for general damages on the basis of a risk purchase tender. Not only this, the Union of India which could have asked for liquidated damages as an alternative relief to the relief of general damages yet it did not pray for this alternative relief of liquidated damages. By the Award, the Arbitrator has dismissed the claim of Union of India on two main grounds that firstly the time of performance was not the essence of the contract and secondly that the Union of India has failed to prove the rates of dehydrated potatoes in and around the date of breach.