9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Arbitral Tribunal in passing the award. The facts narrated in the award do not project any gross misuse of jurisdiction which could shock the conscience of the Court. What the appellant really wants from this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of the 1996 Act is to enter into re-appreciation of evidence. We also find that reasons were given by the Arbitral Tribunal for rejecting the counterclaim by the learned Arbitrator. Appeal disposed off. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the rival parties and a retired Judge of this Court as the Presiding Arbitrator. There was claim for ₹ 5, 17, 88, 418/-under 13 heads excluding interest. TheState referred to in the contract as the client had also made counterclaimfor ₹ 6, 00, 78, 736. 00/-under five heads. The claim primarilyinvolved unpaid amount in respect of work executed under the contract, loss of profit and overhead chargesapart from other consequential claims arising out of termination. The claimant contendedthat such termination was illegal, not being in accordance with the terms of the contract. The nature of counterclaims, on the other hand was for reimbursement on account of unsatisfactory performance by the claimant. That formedmajor part of the counter claim. So far as this appeal is concerned, we do not consider it necessary to reproduce each and every head of claim. 4. In theaward, the Tribunal was unanimous in its finding that termination of the contractwas illegal and invalid. Question of legality of the termination wasdealt with by the Arbitral Tribunal in the following manner:- "17. Now the question is whether the termination of the contract is legal and valid? 18. The an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failure in the performance of their obligations hereunder, as specified in a notice of suspension pursuant to Clause CG 2. 8 above, within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice of suspension or within such further period as the Client may have subsequently approved in writing. . . . . . . . . . . . (d) If the Consultants submit to the Client a statement which has a material effect on the rights, obligations or interests of the Client and which the Consultants know to be false. 25. As already noticed above, the suspension letter dated 12. 12. 2011 was given a go bye/dilutedby the Respondents themselves and therefore Cl. 2. 9. 1(a) was not attracted, on the basis of which the contract was terminated. 26. However the Claimant replied to the said termination notice by letters dated 16. 02. 2012 and 24. 02. 2012 and requested the Respondents to reconsider the matter. The Claimant is justified in arguing that this letter was for amicable settlement in terms of Cl. 8 of G. C. C which reads as follows:- "Cl. 8: Settlement of DisputesCl. 8. 1 Amicable Settlement The parties shall use their best efforts to settle amicably all disputes arising out of or in connection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cashed the Bank guarantee of the Claimant on 22. 11. 2012. 34. During the hearing when asked by us, the Respondents could not show how Cl. 2. 9. 1(d) was attracted. Then they accepted that Cl. (d) was written in the notice by mistake. This also shows non application of mind on the part of the Respondents. 35. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, it has to be held that the termination of the contract was illegal and invalid. Firstly, whenever the Respondents raised issuesand/or alleged deficiencies, the Claimant replied/complied to the issues/allegations. But there was no final word from the Respondents, specifying the deficiencies, which theClaimant failed to remedy. Secondly the Respondents themselves gave a go bye and diluted the suspension notice, by asking the Claimant to ensure compliance of the pending issues. Thirdly, within 45 days of the notice of termination, the Claimant referred the matter to arbitration and therefore in view of Cl. 2. 9. 6 of the GCC, the plea of the Respondents that the contract stood terminated is wholly untenable. 36. Thus it is clear that the contract did not stood terminated and therefore the actions/inactions of the Respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n these circumstances, this court is of the view that the impugned Award passed by learned Arbitrators is well reasoned award. This Court is not required to appreciate, re-evaluate the findings before the learned Arbitrators. The learned Arbitrators have duly explained for arriving at its decision. 23. Therefore, in view of the above said discussion and after considering the contentions of learned counsel for parties and in view of the various authoritative pronouncements discussed above and as this court is not sitting in appeal against the impugned Award passed by three arbitrators and the court is not required to re-appreciateor re-evaluate the evidence lead before the learned Arbitrator, the objector has failed to show how the passing of the impugned award is also against public policy. There is nothing from the award to show that there was no evidence to support the findings of the arbitrators which calls for interference as such the findings of arbitrator which have been objected are upheld. 24. In view of the foregoing reasons this court hold that the objector/petitioner has failed to make out any case for any interference with the impugned award dated 15. 02. 2015 pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
