9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that this award of costs be set aside in view of Clause 118.4 of the contract. Claim petition filed by the respondent being time barred - HELD THAT:- The issue before the Arbitration Tribunal was that whether notices dated 20.09.2010 and 28.09.2010 were served upon the appellant. Arbitration Tribunal in this regard has given detailed findings in paras 46 to 52 of the Award and as per which discussion and conclusion, Arbitration Tribunal has found that the notice Exhibit C-7 dated 20.09.2010 is duly sent to the appellant company by registered post and, therefore, there is presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Arbitration Tribunal also holds that this notice Exhibit C-7 dated 20.09.2010 is also additionally served upon C MD of the appellant and it cannot be held that merely because the notice is sent to Logix Cyber Park, it was not received by the appellant inasmuch as another letter Exhibit C-9 shows that at this address itself appellant has been receiving notices. The law is well settled that the court hearing objections under Section 34 of the Act does not sit as an appellate court to re-apprise findings of facts and conclusions ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim No. 5 6% p.a. vi. Claim No. 6 Rs. 4 lacs Total Rs. 40,56,794.88 vii. Stamp Duty Rs. 4,100/- Grand Total Rs. 40,60,894.88 121. In view of the above I hereby pass award in favour of the claimant and against the respondent for Rs.40,60,894.88 (Rupees Forty Lacs Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Four and Eighty Eight Paise) with interest @ 6% per annum from September, 2010 till realization of the awarded amount. 3. The subject Award dated 27.08.2016 was passed as there arose disputes between the respondent/claimant/contractor and the appellant/owner with respect to construction of an IT Park at C-28 and 29, Sector-62, Noida, U.P. Parties entered into a contract in this regard dated 28.02.2007 which was a contract for a sum of Rs. 31 crores with completion period being of 12 months. As per the respondent/claimant, it completed the entire contract and a virtual completion certificate was issued by the Project Manager of the appellant on 26.08.2008. As per the contract, out of each bil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest but cannot grant interest with respect to the pre-litigation period. 7. In my opinion, so far as grant of interest for pre-litigation period is concerned, I need not go into this aspect in detail inasmuch as I have held in the judgment in the case of Union of India vs. N. K. Garg Company, 2015 (224) DLT 668 that a clause in a contract which bars payment of interest is illegal and is hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and, therefore, such a clause has to be ignored and interest granted to a person whose moneys are illegally retained by the guilty party. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent before this Court has taken this Court to para 120 of the Award and it is seen that as per the total amount awarded under the Award there is no prelitigation interest awarded. This has been pointed out to the learned senior counsel for the appellant who concedes to this position. Therefore no argument remains with respect to alleged illegality in grant of pre-litigation interest in as much as no pre-litigation interest has been given by the Award. 9. On the aspect of award of costs to the respondent/claimant the counsel for the respondent/claimant agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . There is thus due presumption of service of notice dated 20.09.2010 Ex. C-7 at Rouse Avenue, New Delhi address. The invocation was annexed with the statement of claim. 49. In so far as the second address of Sh. Shakti Nath Ji as shown in notice Ex. C-7, it is of Logix Cyber Park . Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. A. K. Singla submitted that Logix Cyber Park is no legal identity. The question is whether Noida Cyber Park Pvt. Ltd. Is also known as Logix Cyber Park . In fact the name of the building is Logix Park . The question is whether notice addressed to Sh. Shakti Nath Ji at Logix Cyber Park A4-5, 4th Floor, Sector-16, Noida would have reached him. In this connection I may refer to letter Ex. C-9 of Mr. G. Sundrani Team Leader of Gherzi Eastern Limited sent to the Director Project of the claimant with copy to GM/Corporate (Logix Park, A-4 5, Sector-16, Noida). It does seem that the letter even without being addressed to the company Noida Cyber Park Pvt. Ltd. can reach it even if it is sent in the name of building i.e. Logix Park. 50. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the respondent however submits that the postal receipt which is shown at the top of Ex. C-7 as Ex. C7/A shows that it was sent t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
