9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004, various emails were exchanged between the parties through brokers to confirm the terms of the contract in accordance with the proforma charter party. 4. Some time in March, 2004, the respondents attempted to back out of their contractual obligations. The petitioners on account of the breach committed by the respondents, suffer losses. The petitioners, therefore, on 5th May, 2004 invoked the arbitration in Singapore and appointed Mr. Andrew Bicknell, as an Arbitrator for resolution of disputes arising out of the contract. The preliminary award was made and published by the Arbitrator on 29th August, 2005. The final award has been made and published by the Arbitrator on 9th October, 2006, of US$ 580294.69, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% and costs. 5. The petitioners, thereafter, by invoking the Arbitration Act, have filed the present petition on 8th December, 2006, based upon the print outs taken out from the computer being the original agreement for Arbitration as contemplated under Section 47 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 and Rule 803(C) of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Original Side Rules-1980. Those print outs are nothing but the xerox copie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f hearing, if necessary. 5. I confirm that the contents of the hard copies of the emails are identical to the emails exchanged through the computer terminals operated by me. I further state and confirm that the contents of the hard copies of the emails at Exhibit A are identical to the hard copies of the emails filed before the arbitrator, a compilation of which I have perused. 6. Accordingly, I am making this present affidavit to certify that the hard copies of the emails annexed at Exhibit A to A4 hereto are a true copy / reproduction of the electronic record which was regularly fed into/transmitted through my computer terminal in Sahi's office in the ordinary course of activities. I further state that at all times the computer terminals utilized by me were operating properly and there is no distortion in the accuracy of the contents of the hard copies of the emails. 8. The above affidavit, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is sufficient compliance of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The above hard copies/ print outs as taken out from the computer, therefore, can be treated as certified copy of agreement for Arbitration, as contemplated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e affirmative by order dated 29th August, 2005. By further order dated 9th October, 2006, the Tribunal has passed the final award. This final award is the subject matter of the present petition. 14. There is nothing on record to show that against these orders/ awards dated 29th August, 2005 and 9th October, 2006, the respondents have preferred any appeal and/or any appeal is still pending. On the contrary, there is a clear affidavit filed on record, that as the respondents failed to file appeal against those orders within 28 days and, therefore, as required and which expired on 26th September, 2005 and 30th November, 2006 respectively, these awards as made and published became final and unappealable under the laws of Republic of Singapore. There is no dispute that the said Arbitration was conducted in Singapore and is also governed by the provisions of the Arbitration Act (Chapter 10) of the Republic of Singapore. The respondents, in their reply also not controverted these facts about the finality of above two awards. Therefore, the fact remains that these two awards have attained finality. 15. The basic submission, therefore, that there was no contract between the parties an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Nirman Nigam Ltd. v. Indure Pvt. Ltd. reported in [1996]2SCR386 . 2. Smita Conductors Ltd. v. Euro Alloys Ltd. reported in 2002CriLJ4127 . 3. Jindal Drugs Ltd. v. Noy Vallesina Engineering SPA and Ors. reported in 2002(3)BomCR554 . 4. Pramod Chimanbai Patel v. Lalit Construction and Anr. reported in 2002(6)BomCR72 . 5. Nirav Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. Prabhuta Motiram Adhvaryu reported in (2002)4BOMLR340 . 6. A. Mohammed Basheer v. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in (2003)6SCC159 . 7. Sekhsaria Exports v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2003 (Supp.2) Bom. C.R.480. 8. United Bank of India v. Ramdas Mahadeo Prashad and Others reported in (2004)1SCC252 . 9. Dresser Rand S.A. v. Bindal Agro Chem. Ltd. and Ors. reported in AIR2006SC871 . 20. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on Smita Conductors Ltd. v. Euro Alloys Ltd. 2002CriLJ4127 in support of his submission. 21. The submission that, there was no binding agreement and or concluded contract between the parties based upon the above judgments, is unacceptable. The facts and circumstances of those cases are totally distinct and distinguishable. There was no such case, s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
