MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. MAHARASHTRA CONDUCTORS ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT. The learned Counsel the respondents waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal forthwith.

(2.) IN these proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an Award of a sole arbitrator rendered on 8th April, 2002 is called into question. The respondent was the claimant in the arbitral proceedings and the claim before the arbitrator arose out of a reference which was made to arbitration, by consent in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The members of the respondent on whose behalf a reference was made to arbitration supplied ACSR Conductors to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board ("the Board" ). Payments had admittedly been made by the Board though beyond the stipulated dates prescribed in the contracts that were entered into by the Board with individual suppliers. In accordance with the provisions of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993, a claim for interest was made before the Board. The claim was not accepted by the Board and this led to the filing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By an order dated 9th March, 2001, a Division Bench of this Court took on record consent terms which were signed by the parties and tendered before the Court by their Counsel. In accordance with those terms, the dispute between the parties relating to the claim of interest made by the members of the respondent, under the provisions of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 in respect of the delayed payment of the price of goods supplied to the Board under two contracts (details whereof are set out in the consent terms) was referred to the arbitration of Mr. Justice M. L. Pendse, former Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. The parties relied exclusively on documentary evidence before the arbitrator. The arbitrator has by an Award dated 18th April, 2002 held that the claim made by the respondent on behalf of its members must be accepted. The amounts which have been awarded are quantified in paragraph 15 of the Award. Future interest has been granted at the rate of 10% p. a. on the amounts thus awarded with effect from 1st July, 2001 which was the date on which the statement of claim was filed before the arbitrator.

(3.) THE claim that was made by the respondents was in respect of two tenders, the first bearing No. SP/t/0802/0397 and the second bearing No. SP/t/0906/0698. Both the tenders were for the supply of ACSR conductors. Seven members of the respondent participated in the first tender, while in so far as the second is concerned, the claim that has been awarded is in respect of six members of the respondents. The dispute between the parties in the present case falls in a narrow compass, because the only point that has been urged in support of the challenge to the Award is in so far as the arbitrator awarded an amount of Rs. 15,00,117. 36, in favour of a concern called Sri Tirupati Udyog ("stu" ). The aforesaid concern had made a claim on the basis that it was a supplier under the second tender, bearing No. 906. In assailing the correctness of the Award of the learned arbitrator to this limited extent, the submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the original contract that had been entered into by the Board was not with STU/as was claimed in the arbitration, but with an entity known by the name of Dashmesh Cables. Dashmesh Cables, it is urged, is not a member of the respondent and hence the submission was that the reference to arbitration is not maintainable to that extent.