UNION OF INDIA Vs. SARATHI ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the said Arbitration Act), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 6th March 2013 allowing some of the claims made by the respondent and rejecting the counter claims made by the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :

(2.) THE respondent was the original claimant in the arbitral proceedings whereas the petitioner herein was the original respondent. Pursuant to a notice inviting tenders issued by the petitioner, the respondent submitted its bid for providing and fixing vitrified tiles flooring over existing flooring from ground to sixth floor at Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had considered all the aspects in the tendered documents and had quoted its rates keeping in view the prevailing market rates for various items inclusive of vitrified tiles of size 60x60 cm manufactured by M/s.H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. having the brand known as 'NUVOLTA DC/ OBERON DC.' It is the case of the petitioner that only in case of non availability of the brand specified in the contract, the respondent could be allowed to use alternate equivalent brand of material after submission of documentary evidence of non availability of the specified brand.