DATAR SWITCHGEAR LIMITED Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant which is a Public Limited Company entered into a contract of lease with the respondents for supply, including erection, commissioning, maintenance, testing and transportation at specified locations, of 47,987 Low Tension Load Management Systems (hereinafter referred to as 'LTLMS'). The work order was issued by the Chief Engineer (Distribution) of the Respondents. The applicant installed 17,294 LTLMS. However, in the year 1998, some disputes arose between the parties which were referred to the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of Mr. Justice V.D. Tulzapurkar (Retd.), Mr. Justice S.C.Pratap (Retd.) and Mr. Justice M.L. Pendse (Retd.). The Arbitral Tribunal made an Award on 18th June, 2004. Some relief was granted to the applicant. The relief granted by the Arbitral Tribunal reads as under:

(2.) Against the Award dated 18th June, 2004, the respondents herein filed a petition (Arbitration Petition no.374 of 2004) under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") challenging the said award. The applicant, on the other hand, filed two petitions viz. Arbitration Petition No.372 of 2004 and 524 of 2004 both under section 9 of the Act, praying that the respondents deposit a sum of Rs. 61,68,47,975/and a sum of Rs.244,22,33,845/, respectively, in court. Vide judgment dated 3rd August, 2005 in Arbitration Petition No.374 of 2004, the award dated 18th June, 2004 was set aside. This judgment was challenged in appeal (Arbitration Appeal No. 672 of 2005) and the Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 22nd October, 2008 set aside the judgment of the Single Judge and remanded the case back for adjudication afresh in accordance with the parameters set out by Section 34 of the Act. In a Special Leave Petition preferred against the judgment of the Appellate Court, before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court vide order dated 18th December, 2008 declined to interfere with the order of the Division Bench and requested the learned single Judge, to whom the case had been remitted, to dispose of the same expeditiously within three months. The learned single Judge vide judgment dated 18th March 2009 dismissed the petition. Both the parties to the present application have filed appeals (Appeal Nos. 165 of 2009 and 166 of 2009) which are pending. In view of the subsequent events, the applicant did not press the petitions under section 9 and the same were withdrawn.

(3.) In other words, since the year 1999, the parties have been pursuing their respective remedies under the Act and various orders have been passed from time to time. During the interregnum period, vide letter dated 30th August, 2004, the Advocates acting on behalf of the respondents served a letter upon the applicant requiring them not to remove any panel without the permission of the respondents and if such an act was done and the panels are not returned within one week then they reserved their right to take action in accordance with law. This letter was replied to by the applicant vide its letter dated 31st August, 2004. The arbitration proceedings between the parties had concluded and they asserted that the material was being unauthorisedly detained by the respondents. This further aggravated the differences between the parties and vide notice dated 14th October, 2004, the applicant raised demand and also claimed interest and claimed a sum of Rs.245,22,33,845/with 18% interest on the said claims.