9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovided under the PMA, before this court. A two tier arbitration procedure does not fall foul of the A&C Act. An arbitration agreement providing for an appellate procedure was permissible under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899 as well as Arbitration Act, 1940. The Single Jugde in previous case set aside the award of the Committee on the ground that the award of the committee did not conform to the scheme of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899. Principle is equally applicable to the A&C Act and there is no provision in A&C Act that proscribes a two tier arbitration procedure. - However, it is not necessary to delve into this issue any further as it is not determinative of the fate of this petition. As noted earlier, SAIL has not impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 13.11.1991 to EPIL for commissioning of a new Calcining Plant at its steel plant at Rourkela, Odisha on turnkey basis. In terms of the contract, the said project was required to be completed in 36 months i.e. by 12.11.1994, however, the said project was completed on 22.06.1998 after a delay of around 3 years and 7 months. This inter alia led to certain disputes between SAIL and EPIL in relation to the said contract, which could not be resolved amicably. 4. Since, the parties are Central Public Sector Enterprises, the arbitration clause in the contract dated 13.11.1991 was substituted by an arbitration agreement, as per the draft annexed to the Office Memorandum (hereafter OM ) dated 22.01.2004, for resolution of their disputes through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etion of work and had sustained losses due to delay on the part of EPIL, in concluding the project. EPIL also filed its counter claims, essentially, claiming payments/damages for additional works, prolongation of works, sales tax and octroi, extra quantity of steel etc. EPIL also claimed that the delay in completion of works was for reasons beyond its control and the delay and lapses - including delay in release of payments - was on part of SAIL. 6. The Sole Arbitrator passed an award dated 16.05.2011, partly allowing the claims of SAIL and awarded an amount of ₹ 14,30,96,779/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 24.08.1995 to 16.05.2011 (computed at approximately ₹ 40.5 Crores). The Sole Arbitrator also partly allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of the Sole Arbitrator could only be filed before the Law Secretary/Special Secretary/Additional Secretary, Ministry of Law Justice, Government of India. It was further contended that as per Clause X of the OM dated 22.01.2004 the decision of the Law Secretary/Special Secretary/Additional Secretary shall bind the parties finally and conclusively ; therefore no further appeal was permissible in terms of the OM dated 22.01.2004 and, accordingly, the petition was not maintainable. 10. EPIL further contended that the Appellate Authority had passed a reasoned award after examining in detail the issues involved, including disputed questions of fact and re-agitation of those issues by SAIL by means of a writ petition was not permissible, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, SAIL has also relied on the aforesaid decision of this court in Ircon International (supra) and in its rejoinder pleaded that:- guidelines pertaining to the effect that decision of the Law Secretary/Special Secretary/Additional Secretary shall bind the parties finally and conclusively , is violative of the Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act being in restraint of legal proceedings and also faling foul of the settled legal proposition that one cannot contract out of the statute [ i.e. Arbitration and Conciliation Act] Thus, even according to SAIL, A C Act would be applicable to arbitration proceedings under the PMA. In this view, the present petition would not lie as by virtue of Section 5 of the A C Act recourse to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lla v. Jokin Nahopier Co.: AIR 1927 Cal. 647 dealt with a situation where the dispute was first refered to Arbitrators, then to an umpire, and the award of the umpire was, thereafter, challenged before the Committee of the Calcutta Baled Jute Association. The Single Jugde set aside the award of the Committee on the ground that the award of the committee did not conform to the scheme of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899. The order of Single Judge was challenged before Division Bench wherein Justice Buckland in its concluding para held as under:- The procedure whereby the dispute comes before the committee is called an appeal. What it is called is of no consequence; the fast remains that the committee is a body other than a C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
