CHENNAI PORT TRUST Vs. CHETTINAD LOGISTICS (P.) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Captioned 'Original Petition' ('OP' for the sake of brevity) is an application under Section 34 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996)' and this Act shall hereinafter be referred to as 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity and convenience. Captioned OP which is under section 34 of A and C Act is a challenge to an 'arbitral award dated 20.11.2013' (hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of convenience) made by a Three member 'Arbitral Tribunal' ('AT' for the sake of brevity). Impugned award is a unanimous award made by the three member AT. To be noted, when captioned OP was presented in this court, the three noblemen who constituted the AT were arrayed as respondents 2 to 4, but they were subsequently given up on 20.04.2018. Therefore, there is only one respondent, i.e., a lone respondent now in the captioned OP.

(2.) Petitioner in captioned OP is 'Chennai Port Trust', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'Chennai Port' for the sake of convenience. The company which entered into (with Chennai Port) a memorandum of agreement dated 27.03.2008 (pursuant to a letter of intent dated 06.09.2007) is now the lone respondent and this company shall hereinafter be referred to as 'Contractor' for the sake of clarity.

(3.) Aforementioned letter of intent dated 06.09.2007 issued by Chennai Port and memorandum of agreement dated 27.03.2008 shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as 'said contract' for the sake of clarity. This court is informed that said contract is for design, manufacture, supply, installation, operation and maintenance of semi mechanised closed conveyor system for coal handling at Jawahar Dock including Bubble Structure complete with all accessories. 'Design, manufacture, supply and installation' shall be referred to as 'said work'; 'Operation and Maintenance' shall be referred to as 'O and M' for the sake of convenience and clarity. To be noted, O and M is for a period of three years in the case on hand. There is no disputation or disagreement before this court that the value of said contract for said work and O and M put together is little over Rs.46.44 Crores (Rs.46,44,40,000/- to be precise) besides a tax component of Rs.3.61 crores, but there is disagreement as to whether O and M should be treated as part of said contract qua said contract value. Contractor contends that O and M should not be included in the value of contract and therefore, the value of said contract is Rs.42,83,00,000/- only. Be that as it may, there is no disputation or disagreement that said work has to be completed by the contractor within a period of six months from the date of letter of intent, i.e., by 05.03.2008, but it was ultimately completed only on 16.11.2009. O and M was for a period of three years and obviously, it commenced post completion of said work, but it did not continue for entire three years period and had to end on 01.10.2011 as this Hon'ble Court directed Chennai Port to stop handling coal owing to environmental issues, this court is informed that coal handling was moved to Ennore Port, but it is not necessary to delve any further into that aspect for the purpose of case on hand. In other words, that O and M came to a premature end on 01.10.2011 needs to be noticed for the limited purpose of completion of narrative qua facts.