9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings and that he has committed an error of law which is apparent on the face of the Award. Brief facts of the case are that M/s.'the Contractor') had been awarded a tender on 26.11.1997 for the supply of 2856 Milk Aluminium Containers on the specifications detailed in the Acceptance of Tender. The Contractor failed to supply these Containers even for the extended delivery period and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether contract has been illegally cancelled by the Union of India?. 2. Whether Risk Purchase is in order?. 3. Whether Union of India is entitled to any damages whatsoever?. 4. Whether the Contractor is entitled to the claimed amount by way of counter claim?. 2. On issue No. 1 the Arbitrator returned the finding that the Contract had not been illegally cancelled by the Union of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on on Issues 1 to 3, the Contractor was entitled to a refund of a sum of ₹ 2,12,466.40, which is the amount illegally withheld by the Union of India. 6. I have perused the Objections filed on behalf of Union of India and in my view none of the points raised therein disclose any ground for concluding that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself and/or the proceedings. There are no manifest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Arbitrator he was of the opinion that the forfeiture of the security deposit sufficiently compensated the Union of India for the Contractor's failure to deliver goods. 7. There is no justification for assailing the Award, as sought to be done in these Objections, merely because the claim of the Union of India for the differential between the contracted price and the price in the second R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
