PRAGATI MGFR Vs. U O I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. A. 7606/1995 present application has been filed by the Union of India seeking condonation of delay in filing objections to the Award. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing objections is condoned. Accordingly, application stands disposed of. I. A. 7605/1995 present application has been filed by the Union of India under section 30 of Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "act, 1940") challenging the impugned Award dated 31st May, 1994 to the extent it rejected Union of India's counter-claim towards risk purchase loss.

(2.) IT is pertinent to mention that by virtue of the said Award, learned Arbitrator had also directed refund of security deposit and payment of balance amount under the contract dated 18 th March, 1988 executed between the parties. However, the decision to refund the security amount as well as to make balance payment have not been challenged in the present application.

(3.) MR. Rajat Gaur, learned counsel for applicant-Union of India submitted that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself by exceeding his jurisdiction by not taking into account the term of the contract which permitted the UOI to issue a risk purchase order. He stated that the petitioner-contractor had been given a number of opportunities to supply the tent poles and it was only after the contractor had repeatedly failed to supply the same, that the applicant-Union of India had purchased the said poles from three different suppliers. He submitted that in the present instance, the contractor had been over-paid beyond the contractual terms and the Arbitrator had not considered the documents pertaining to the overpayment.