9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r refund of the amount of licence fee together with interest paid by it to the DOT subject to the finding that if the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal ('TDSAT') or in any further appeal/further proceedings, it was finally held that BML was not liable to pay interest for the period of 52 days, i.e., from 18th April 1996 to 11th June 1997 then the DOT would refund the said amount to BML. Background facts Prior to 29th March 2000 BML was known as M/s. JT Mobiles Limited ('JTM'). The name of JTM was changed to BML by a certificate dated 29th March 2000 issued by the Registrar of Companies ('ROC'), Karnataka. 2. On 16th January 1995, the Government of India through Ministry of Communications, DOT issued tender documents for CMTS in various telecom circles including Punjab. JTM was provisionally selected for providing CMTS in the telecom Circles of Punjab, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. Since the telecom service areas of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka were proximate while that of the Punjab Circle was not, it was decided to implement the licence agreement for the Punjab Circle by a separate legal entity. Accordingly, on 5th December 1995, a resol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s. J.T. Mobiles Telecom Ltd; (2) Any variation in equity pattern and/or expansion in equity base of M/s. J.T. Mobiles Ltd. and M/s. Evergrowth Telecom Ltd will not be undertaken without obtaining permission of the Telecom Authority; (3) Foreign equity in M/s. Evergrowth Telecom Ltd. including the holding through M/s. J.T. Mobiles Ltd. will not exceed 49%; (4) The proportionate shareholdings of the individual foreign promoters/partners of M/.s. J.T. Mobiles Ltd., whose networth and/or experience have been taken into consideration for determining the eligibility and grant of the licence, in the subsidiary company viz., M/s. Evergrowth Telecom Ltd must not go below 10% for at least during the initial three years period as stipulated in the Tender conditions; (5) As in item (4) above, the shareholding of Indian promoters of M/s. J.T. Mobiles Ltd. in the subsidiary company shall not go below 10% during the first three years. (6) Resolution of the company viz., M/s. J.T. Mobiles Ltd passed as per the relevant laws/acts on the subject or any guidelines issued by any statutory authority, confirming the proposal of the operation of CMTS in Punjab through the subsidiary, i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of a proposal whereby it intended to invite Essar Telecom Limited ('Essar') and an associate company of Essar Commission Limited to contribute 52% in the share capital of EGTL and JTM continued to hold 24% of the share capital in the company. The balance 24% was proposed to be offered to other non-residents. As a result the total share holding of EGTL would be 64.25% Indian and 35.75% Foreign. JTM requested the DOT for its formal approval to finalize the structure and also requested the DOT to assign the Punjab cellular licence to EGTL. 8. On 1st May 1996 the DOT wrote to JTM, as under: Dear Sir, Kindly refer your letter dated 26th April 1996 regarding share holding structure of M/s. Evergrowth Telecom Ltd. In this regard, your kind attention is drawn to letter No. 842-65(A)/95-VAS dated 18th April 1996. I have been directed to ask you to kindly confirm that you have fulfilled the conditions listed in that letter. You are also requested to submit the necessary documents in support of the same. 9. In response, on 1st/2nd May 1996 JTM wrote to the DOT, as under: Sub: Operation of Cellular Mobile Telephone Services in Punjab Circle. We refer to your letter 842-65( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... phonic conversion with the Deputy Director General (VAS), DOT, JTM wrote to the DOT confirming that JTM would be injecting up to Rs. 35 crores of equity in EGTL and that EGTL will remain 100% subsidiary of JTM after this equity infusion. It was added that "we understand that it is in accordance with your approval letter dated 18th April 1996." 11. On 22nd August 1996 DOT forwarded to all cellular licencees, including JTM, the proforma draft of the interconnection agreement. On 27th August 1996 EGTL executed a GSM Cellular System Equipment Purchase agreement with Motorola Inc. On 5th September 1996 Deutsche Bank wrote to EGTL regarding credit facilities for financial performance guarantee of Rs. 35 crores to be submitted to the DOT. A subscription agreement was executed by EGTL and Essar on 5th September 1996 for issuance of 98 lakhs convertible debentures of Rs. 100 each at par aggregating to Rs. 98 crores. On 2nd October 1996 a 'civil works and site services agreement' was executed between EGTL and Motorola India Ltd. for the CMTS Punjab Circle. On 17th October 1996 a Supply Contract was executed between EGTL and Nokia for supply of equipment for GSM Switching S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EGTL referring to the letter dated 11th December 1996 from DOT of Delhi and stated that no objection given to EGTL has not become effective and "no correspondence can be accepted from your firm on behalf of J.T. Mobiles." 15. On 3rd January 1997 JTM wrote to the DOT expressing its surprise upon receiving the DOT's letter dated 11th December 1996 and once again confirmed its compliance with the various conditions stipulated in the letter dated 18th April 1996. On 4th January 1997 by two letters, JTM informed the DOT that it had complied with the various conditions stipulated in the letter dated 18th April 1996 and that DOT should recognise EGTL as the "legitimate entity to operate the Punjab CMTS and to conduct all the necessary communications and work with the concerned authorities for the Punjab Cellular Licence". JTM also pointed out that EGTL had already undertaken a number of actions for implementation of the Punjab licence and that Punjab project was far too advanced. Various financial agreements had already been in place between EGTL and the financial institutions to commence the implementation of the Punjab CMTS and it was not possible to withdraw t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and simultaneously removed M/s. PCIL from amongst the promoters. (ii) As per Clause 17 of the Licence Agreement the equity holding of M/s. PCIL an Indian promoter cannot be reduced below 10 of total aggregate for a period of 3 years from effective date. (iii) The statement that the company has decided to assign/transfer Punjab Licence to Essar Group is against the prohibition of assignment or transfer of licence as prescribed per Clause 10 of the Licence Agreement. (iv) The above is in violation of the express terms and conditions of the licence agreement. In view of the above, within ten days from the receipt of this letter, kindly explain that why action for termination of licence, under Clause 5, may not be taken due to the above noted breaches committed by you. In case reply is not received within aforesaid 10 days, then it will be presumed and taken that you have nothing to say on the matter. 19. In reply dated 1st July 1997 to the above show-cause notice dated 12th June 1997, JTM stated that the notice was based on incorrect facts, surmises and conjectures and there was no breach of licence. On 11th August 1997 JTM informed DOT that EGTL had incurred expenditure of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e agreement. 22. On 6th January 1998 JTM wrote to the TC stating that PCIL was only a nominee of RKA and the said arrangement was later terminated by RKA pursuant to which there was litigation pending in the Bangalore Civil Court and Delhi High Court between RKA and PCIL. It was on this score that permission was sought by JTM to replace PCIL and RKA and this was accepted by the DOT by its letter dated 3rd April 1996. Since the licence did not prohibit increase in equity of any shareholder, the equity of United Telecom Limited ('UTL') was increased from 11% to 31%. Since the shareholding of PCIL in JTM was nil there was no breach of licence on account of PCIL being replaced with RKA. 23. On 8th January 1998 LPA filed by PCIL was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court observing that the issues raised in the letter dated 18th April 1996 by the DOT and in the letter dated 12th June 1997 would be decided by the DOT. The interim order dated 22nd August 1997 was vacated. 24. On 12th January 1998 JTM wrote to the DOT reiterating the compliance of the various conditions as stipulated in the letter dated 18th April 1996 and sought to move forward in rolling out services in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... including those accrued up to 11th September 1998 for third year by 12th September 1998. The request for waiver of interest would be considered only after payment of the principal amount by the company. JTM was directed not to ask for any change in the effective date or take legal recourse for waiver of the licence fee and was asked to withdraw the suit filed by it and EGTL in the Delhi High Court unconditionally. 27. On 2nd April 1998 JTM wrote to the Chairman, TC enclosing a demand draft of Rs. 5 crore dated 2nd April 1998 towards part payment of the second year Punjab Circle licence fee but requested for deferment of the payment of the outstanding dues for the second year as well as for the dues accrued for the first and second quarters of the third year up to 31st March 1999. The third quarter of licence fee for the third year would be paid as per schedule, and that it would approach the DOT separately for waiver of interest after payment of licence fee. On 24th September 1998 a further request was made by JTM for change of the effective date to 4th November 1997 and commercial clearance for their network in Chandigarh and grant of three to four months to reach financial clos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ior thereto on 8th July 1999 JTM requested that the disputes be referred to arbitration. 31. As noted earlier the name of JTM was changed to BML by a certificate dated 29th March 2000 issued by the ROC, Karnataka. 32. On 19th September 2001 the DOT wrote to BML offering a modified package whereby the issue concerning payment of licence fee for the period between 18th April 1996 and 10th March 1998 was proposed to be referred to an Arbitrator. By a letter of the same date BML accepted the above offer and also paid part payment of Rs. 220 crores. On 21st September 2001 it had paid a further payment of balance of Rs. 58,48,094 by which time it had also paid a sum of Rs. 485 crores. Thus all outstanding amounts had been paid by it by that date. On 22nd September 2001 BML wrote to the Director (VAS-I), DOT confirming compliance with all the conditions stipulated in the order dated 18th April 1996. 33. On 25th September 2001 the DOT wrote to BML informing that in terms of the unconditional acceptance of the terms and conditions of the package and meeting of the milestones of the package, the DOT was withdrawing the termination order dated 15th July 1999. On 27th September 2001 the DOT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to the operation of the Licence Agreement due to the letter dated 18th April 1996 or due to any subsequent event related thereto? (5) Alternatively, whether the Respondent had, by its letter dated 18th April 1996 and by its conduct clearly represented that the Agreement dated 26th December 1995 could be implemented by Evergrowth only and the same was acted upon by the Claimant and Evergrowth to their detriment and whether consequently, the Respondent was estopped from contending that the Licence Agreement could not be implemented by Evergrowth? (6) Whether the Respondent is estopped from contending that the letter dated 18th April 1996 did not come into effect as alleged or at all? (7) Whether the Claimant had a legitimate expectation that the Licence Agreement dated 26th December 1995 could be implemented by or through Evergrowth? (8) Whether the letter of the Respondent dated 11th December 1996, that stated that the letter dated 18th April 1996 was ineffective and Evergrowth could not be allowed to implement the Licence Agreement dated 26th December 1995, is arbitrary, capricious, invalid and violative of principles of natural justice? (8A) Whether, in view of Clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontract through EGTL, nor did it permit EGTL to implement the contract in its own right. There was no justification whatsoever for JTM to proceed on that assumption. It was held that the original contract of the licence between JTM and DOT dated 26th December 1995 remained. The learned Arbitrator held that the request by JTM to the DOT seeking amendment of the licence was its 'offer', the DOT's letter dated 18th April 1996 was a 'counter offer' and JTM's letters dated 18th April 1996 and 26th April 1996 were 'further counter offers'. DOT by its letter dated 1st May 1996 had not accepted these 'further counter offers' but stuck to its original 'counter offers' dated 18th April 1996. Section 7(2) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 ('CA') had no application since the dispute did not concern the 'form' of the Board Resolution of JTM but its 'substance'. It was only on 23rd January 1998 that all 7 conditions laid down by the DOT on 18th April 1996 were accepted by the Board of Directors of JTM. Consequently, Issues 1 to 3 were decided against BML and in favour of the DOT. 37. On Issues 4 and 4(a), the learned Arbitra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation Act, 1996. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Arbitrator for the period 18th April 1996 to 10th March 1998 has declined the refund of interest charged by the respondent at penal rate of 17.5% compounded monthly. Learned senior counsel submitted that the Arbitrator has erred in proceeding on the basis that once there was a contractual stipulation even in equity such penal rate could be permitted. Counsel places reliance on case of Central Bank of India v. Ravindra & Ors. (2002) 1 SCC 367. Counsel also raises the contention that the interpretation given by the learned Arbitrator to the correspondence between the parties regarding the undertaking required from the Petitioner that EGTL shall remain 100% owned subsidiary was unwarranted in as much as the Petitioners had clearly specified that EGTL remains its own 100% subsidiary. Notice to the Respondent for 2nd April, 2003. Notice be also issued to the learned Arbitrator for filing of the award alongwith its record. 40. It appears that during the pendency of this petition, BML obtained photocopies of three opinions of the AG, dated 30th March 2000, 14th April 2001 and 29th August 2001 pursuant to the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he was not pressing prayer (iii) of the said application for deciding the preliminary legal objections as a preliminary issue. Nevertheless he was pressing for the other reliefs including remand of the present dispute forming subject matter of the impugned Award to the TDSAT for adjudication. In the event, the preliminary objection of the Petitioner was upheld. Notice was issued on the said application by the Court. Submissions on the lack of jurisdiction of the Arbitrator 43. The first submission by Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior counsel and Mr. Harsh Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for BML pertained to the jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator. It was submitted that TRAI Act being a special legislation would prevail over the 1996 Act and therefore, it was only the TDSAT which could adjudicate the subject matter of the arbitral proceedings. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd. (2008) 4 SCC 755 (hereinafter referred to as the 'GUVNL case'), India Trade Promotion Organization v. International Amusement Limited 142 (2007) DLT 342 (DB) and Vinayak Balkrishna Samant v. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited 1996 (3) Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be raised at any stage. A party will not be estopped from raising such a plea because it had invoked the arbitration clause and participated in the arbitration proceedings. Reference is made to the decision in Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (Deceased) through LRs v. Jasjit Singh 1993 (2) SCC 507 and the decision of the TDSAT in Star (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. It is submitted that Section 2 (3) of the 1996 Act also acknowledges that a dispute that can be decided by a properly designated Tribunal would not be referred to arbitration. It is submitted that although the grounds urged in the petition as originally filed covered the objection to the impugned Award on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator, the amendment application was filed out of abundant caution. In any event since the objection as to lack of subject matter jurisdiction went to the root of the matter it could be raised at any stage, even seven years after the filing of the main petition. 46. On the issue of jurisdiction, it is submitted by Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, learned Additional Solicitor General ('ASG') appearing for the DOT, that in terms of Section 21 of the 1996 Act the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Section 16 of the 1996 Act was on a higher pedestal than Section 21 of the CPC. Section 16 of the 1996 Act permitted the learned Arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction. If such plea was permitted to be raised at a stage long after the passing of the Award, it would defeat the very object of expeditious adjudication of disputes under the 1996 Act. Mr. Mehra further submitted that a challenge to the Award by seeking amendment to the petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC could not be permitted long after filing of the expiry of the maximum permissible statutory period of limitation under the proviso to Section 34 (3) of the 1996 Act. It was further submitted that unlike Section 174 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which was a non-obstante clause, Section 14 of the TRAI Act was not and therefore, the decision in the GUVNL case was distinguishable. Tenability of the application for amendment 49. The above submissions have been considered. There are two issues concerning jurisdiction that arise for consideration in the present case. One is whether the plea as to the learned Arbitrator not having the inherent or subject matter jurisdiction to deal with the dispute ought not to have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther party. Such objection can be raised even by a party which invokes the arbitration clause and files a statement of claims. The word 'jurisdiction' under Section 16 is wide enough to include objections as to the subject matter jurisdiction. Indeed it is not confined to pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction. The failure to raise such objection and permit the arbitral proceedings to reach its logical stand would clearly preclude a party from raising such objection at a later stage. Under Section 16 if such an objection is raised and rejected by the arbitral Tribunal the party raising such objection would have to wait till the Award is passed, and raise such plea under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. In arbitral proceedings under the 1996 Act objections as to jurisdiction have to be raised in the manner provided in the 1996 Act. In other words it can be done only by way of an application under Section 16 and again not later than the filing of the statement of defence. If the said requirement is not viewed as being mandatory, and if a party is permitted to raise such objection at any time of its choice, it would defeat the object of the 1996 Act which is to ensure expeditious ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated the scope of that expression. The lack of inherent jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute has to necessarily be pleaded specifically. It has to be shown to lead to a patent illegality vitiating the impugned Award. 54. There is another reason why the strict view must be taken of scope of challenge to the Award under the 1996 Act. If all grounds of challenge are not taken to the impugned Award at the time of filing of the petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, and are permitted to be raised at any time, then the legislative intent behind prescribing a maximum time limit under the proviso to Section 34 (3) of the 1996 Act would be defeated. In Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra Reddy (2007) 2 SCC 720 the Supreme Court did not permit an objection as to the jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator to be raised at the stage of an appeal when no such objection was raised during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings. In Gas Authority of India Ltd. v. Keti Construction (I) Ltd. (2007) 5 SCC 38 it was held that where a party has received notice and it does not raise a plea of lack of jurisdiction before the Tribunal "he must make out a strong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicate any dispute - (i) between a licensor and a licensee; (ii) between two or more service providers; (iii) between a service provider and a group of consumers; Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply in respect of matters relating to - (A) the monopolistic trade practice, restrictive trade practice and unfair trade practice which are subject to the jurisdiction of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission established under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (54 of 1969); (B) the complaint of an individual consumer maintainable before a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or a Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission established under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986); (C) dispute between telegraph authority and any other person referred to in sub-section (1) of section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 (13 of 1885); (b) hear and dispose of appeal against any direction, decision or order of the Authority under this Act. 14M. Transfer of pending cases - All applications, pending for adjudication of disputes before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing before the TRAI immediately before 24th January 2000 shall stand transferred to the TDSAT upon its establishment. The proviso to Section 14M states that the disputes which were already being adjudicated prior to 24th January 2000 would continue to be adjudicated by the TRAI till the TDSAT is actually established, and would be transferred to it immediately upon its establishment. Section 14M does not talk of all pending arbitral proceedings. Section 14N deals with cases pending before the High Court. Arbitral proceedings are not covered under Section 14N of the TRAI Act either. Section 15 states that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the TDSAT is empowered to determine. The words 'entertain any suit or proceeding' indicate the prospective nature of that provision. None of the above provisions support the contention of BML that pending arbitral proceedings could not go on after the establishment of the TDSAT and that in the present case, the learned Arbitrator lacked inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes. 59. Therefore, if the plea of lack of inherent jurisdiction had been raised by BML be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hose very documents. BML and EGTL sought approvals in their subsequent letters only pursuant to the Condition No. 2 of the NOC. It is submitted that JTM never stated that it would maintain only 12.24% equity. The learned Arbitrator ignored the proportionate foreign equity of BML of 11.76% and therefore, came to a wrong finding. In its letter dated 1st/2nd May 1996 BML had conveyed to DOT its acceptance of each of the conditions of the letter dated 18th April 1996. The letter dated 23rd January 1998 was only a reiteration of that acceptance. The wording of BML's letter dated 1st/2nd May 1996 and the subsequent letters dated 3rd and 4th January 1997 was identical to the resolution letter dated 23rd January 1998. 62. The learned ASG appearing for the DOT responded by submitting that unequivocal acceptance of the seven conditions in the letter dated 18th April 1996 was never conveyed by BML earlier to 23rd January 1998. The letter dated 18th April 1996 of the DOT was a conditional NOC that was not complied with by BML during the so-called 'black out' period. DOT's letter dated 11th December 1996 clearly stated that the letter dated 18th April 1996 had not become effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SC 3660 the Court explained that "the role of the arbitrator is to arbitrate within the terms of the contract. He has no power apart from what the parties have given him under the contract. If he has travelled beyond the contract, he would be acting without jurisdiction, whereas if he has remained inside the parameters of the contract, his award cannot be questioned on the ground that it contains an error apparent on the face of the record." In Associated Engineering Co. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1992 SC 232 the Supreme Court set aside an Award after finding that the Arbitrator in that case committed an error "not by misreading or misconstruing or misunderstanding the contract, but by acting in excess of what was agreed. It was an error going to the root of his jurisdiction because he asked himself the wrong question, disregarded the contract and awarded in excess of his authority." 66. The decision of the learned Arbitrator on Issues 1 to 4 was central to the entire Award. A perusal of the impugned Award shows that the finding on those issues has influenced the decision on the remaining issues. To briefly recapitulate, while deciding Issues 1 to 3 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditions 1 and 2 to clarify the possible anomaly cannot be viewed as a refusal, repudiation or non-acceptance by JTM of Conditions 1 and 2. In any event, with JTM confirming by letter dated 1st/2nd May 1996 that EGTL "is a 100% subsidiary of JTM", Condition No. 1 stood satisfied. The letter dated 24th April 1996 from EGTL also assured that the equity held by JTM in EGTL would not be diluted below 24% at any time and foreign equity would not exceed 49% of the total issued capital including foreign equity held by JTM. In the letter dated 26th April 1996 JTM sought approval of the proposal to have Essar contributing 52% in the share capital of EGTL. The letter dated 1st/2nd May 1996 unequivocally states that "EGTL remains 100% owned subsidiary of JTM as of 1st May 1996". The words "always" or "throughout" do not occur in Condition No. 1 of the NOC dated 18th April 1996. As rightly pointed out by BML the learned Arbitrator appears to have read such words into the NOC dated 18th April 1996 when there was no such condition. In fact if permission was granted under Condition No. 2, then clearly Condition No. 1 would not be fulfilled. Till such time pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is force in the contention of BML that this approach to the evidence has led to the impugned Award erroneously deciding Issues 1 to 3. Consequently, it is not possible to accept the submission of the learned ASG that the view expressed by the learned Arbitrator on Issues 1 to 3 was a plausible one. 71. Issue No. 4 concerned the novation of the agreement dated 26th December 1995. The NOC letter dated 18th April 1996 conveyed DOT's conditional acceptance of the request of JTM to permit EGTL to operate the licence agreement. The finding of the learned Arbitrator that there was no novation of the licence agreement was as a direct consequence of his findings on Issues 1 to 3. Consequently, the Award in respect of Issue 4 is also required to be set aside. 72. The central issue referred to the learned Arbitrator was: "Whether the licence fee for the period 18th April 1996 to 10th March 1998 including interest on that sum is payable by the company on the basis of the facts and circumstances pleaded by both the parties." The answer to the said question depended on the answer to Issues 1 to 4. The answer by the learned Arbitrator to the above question in the affirmative has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
