9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be raised to assail the impugned judgment. Besides the above mentioned plea, no other ground has been taken to assail the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment does not warrant interference and is accordingly upheld - Appeal dismissed. - FAO(OS) (COMM) 207/2019 & C.M. Nos. 38809-810/2019 - - - Dated:- 30-8-2019 - HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA For the Appellant : Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shruti, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Sachin Sood and Ms. Priya Soni, Advocates. O R D E R 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.5.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing a petition filed by it under Section 34 of the Arbitration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to provide the necessary service and labour input and also deploy the requisite equipment required to construct the D-wall of specified thickness. Importantly, the subcontract works had a timeframe fixed. The time for execution of the sub-contract works commenced from 24.12.2014 and was to expire on 30.11.2015. 2.4 The record shows that Ipex was not able to complete the work by 30.11.2015. The case set up by Ipex before the learned arbitrator to explain the delay was that HCC had made a false representation, which, inter alia, pertained to the following: i. That it was in possession of hinderance free site. ii. That HCC had obtained all clearances and approvals from statutory authorities, including DMRC. iii. That the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rance free site and the consequent losses caused to Ipex, inter alia, in the form of idling cost. There are also letters on record which demonstrate the concern of Ipex in HCC s failure to divert the utilities at the site which were causing hindrance and the resultant loss to it. 2.8 Besides this, there is also correspondence on record which shows that HCC was not in possession of requisite permission from statutory authorities qua aspect such as diversion of road. The aforementioned aspects come to fore on a perusal of letters dated 23.06.2015, 06.07.2015, 14.08.2015, 17.10.2015, 09.11.2015, 09.01.2016 and 14.01.2016. 2.9 It appears that despite HCC failing to live up to its representation, it wrote to Ipex on 10.02.2016 to extend th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rried out by Ipex on the south side of the road. This work comprised, approximately, 50% of the sub-contract works to be executed by Ipex. It appears that HCC failed to open a LOC despite an assurance given in that behalf. In the meanwhile, the losses and dues payable to Ipex mounted. 3.4 Despite such a situation obtaining, HCC on 08.08.2016, once again, called upon Ipex to extend the validity period of the PBG. The record shows that there was a lot of back and forth on this issue. Ipex was reluctant to take such a step not only on account of mounting losses but also due to the fact that it was unable to make payment to its own staff and vendors. 3.5 Ipex s grievances with regard to HCC s : failure in opening the LOC, its losses on ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edly, that the appellant did not file its reply/counter claim within the stipulated timeline. Vide order dated 27.4.2018, the learned Sole Arbitrator rejected the request of the appellant for grant of further time in that regard. Further, an application moved by the appellant on 07.9.2018, for recalling the order dated 27.4.2018, was also dismissed by the learned Arbitrator on 30.10.2018, whereafter he fixed 12.11.2018, as the date for the parties to address oral arguments. The Sole Arbitrator also granted time to the counsel for the appellant to file the written synopsis on or before 30.11.2018. Similarly, the respondent was granted time upto 07.12.2018, to file the written synopsis in response to the synopsis of the other side, while exch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reinabove. (ii) that the learned arbitrator failed to take into account the provisions of the agreement dated 15.07.2014 executed between HCC and DMRC. 6. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that besides the aforesaid two grounds, no other ground was urged during the arguments. Turning down both the grounds taken by the appellant to assail the impugned judgment, the Section 34 petition was rejected by the impugned order. 7. Mr. Krishnan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant states that the learned Single Judge has erred in arriving at the conclusion that the Sole Arbitrator was justified in ignoring the belated written submissions filed by the appellant. He submits that even though the written ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
