LAWS(BOM)-2016-12-113

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. Vs. SUNFIELD RESOURCES PVT. LTD

Decided On December 21, 2016
Ultratech Cement Ltd. Appellant
V/S
Sunfield Resources Pvt. Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act") arises from the judgment and order dated 30 June 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the Appellant's petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, challenging the Award of the Sole Arbitrator dated 4 July 2003 has been rejected. The learned Arbitrator allowed the claim made by the Respondent (original claimant) and rejected the counterclaim of the Appellant (original Respondent). Thus there are concurrent findings of two forums against the Appellants.

(2.) The factual antecedents in which the controversy arises may be illustrated by the following facts:- The Respondent-claimant is a company incorporated in Australia having its principal place of business in Sydney. At the material time, it was represented in India through its representative M/s.Ensource Energy (India) Private Limited (for short "ENSOURCE"). The business of the Respondent was interalia of supplying non-coking coal. The Appellant (formerly known as Larsen & Turbo Ltd.) had entered into contract dated 18 September 1999, with the Respondent, for bulk purchase of 'Steaming non-coking coal', from the Respondent, which set out the terms and conditions of the said transaction. The coal to be supplied by the Respondent was of South African origin.

(3.) There is no dispute that under clause 4 of the contract the cargo size was agreed and that the cargo was to be discharged at the Appellant's jetty at Pipavav Port. The contract also provided for the discharge of the cargo at Chennai Port as also the cargo size for discharge at the said location. Clause 8 of the contract provided for "Timing" for five items of firm cargo and option cargo to be separately indicated at a later date. Clause 8 of the contract provided as follows:-