JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD Vs. MODERN BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Nanda, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant. He submits, impugned in the appeal is judgment dtd. 22/9/2021 rejecting his client's challenge to award dtd. 16/5/2018. He submits, the proceeding was conducted in a manner that raised apprehension of bias against the Tribunal. He refers to paragraph 4 in the petition under sec. 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Therein allegations were made regarding grant of adjournments to respondent claimant. There are other allegations regarding procedure adopted in the reference, to be biased in favour of respondent, its witness. He refers to paragraph 10 in impugned judgment and submits, the allegations were not at all considered but simply the Court said that the Tribunal nowhere resorted to any unfair means or relied on unexhibited documents. He submits, letter dtd. 15/7/2013 (page 44) was considered in the award, not being an exhibit.

(2.) The second ground is, the finding respondent is entitled to compensation by reason of termination of contract is perverse. This has been summarily dealt with at paragraph 9 of the judgment, reproduced below.

(3.) His third contention is that his client's counter claim was rejected by the Tribunal as barred by limitation. This finding in the award was also perverse but confirmed by impugned judgment. The Tribunal held against his client saying that counter claim was not raised soon after issuance of termination of contract. It was raised before the Tribunal by pleading. It was barred by limitation. He draws attention to letter of termination dtd. 27/9/2011 and points out that there was direction upon respondent to raise full and final bill after reconciliation of free issue material/equipment/damages for final settlement/adjustment. It was only after reconciliation, counter claim arose and thereby cannot be said to be barred by limitation."