Bangalore District Court
M/S Urc Construction Private vs M/S Beml Limited on 9 June, 2021
1
Com.A.S.175/2016
IN THE Court OF LXXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, (EXCLUSIVE DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT)
AT BENGALURU (CCH.88)
THIS THE 9th DAY OF JUNE 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.CHANDRASHEKHAR U., B.Sc., LL.M.,
LXXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com.A.S.No.175/2016
PLAINTIFF: M/s URC Construction Private
Limited,
a Companies act, 1956, having its
registered office at No.119, Power
House Road, Erode -638 001, Tamil
Nadu, and its corporate office at Plot
No.810, 1st Cross, 7th Main, HAL 2nd
Stage, Indiranagar,
Bengaluru - 560 008,
represented by its Managing Director,
Mr. S. Palanisamy.
(Reptd by learned counsel, P.B.A)
AND
DEFENDANTS : 1. M/s BEML LIMITED,
a company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its
registered Office at "BEML Soudha",
No.23/1, 4th Main Road,S.R. Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 027, and its Aerospace
Division at 4th Floor, Unity Building, J.C.
Road, Bengaluru - 560 002,
represented by its General Manager,
(Projects), Mr. N.V.Satheesha
(Reptd by learned counsel, S.A.M)
2
Com.A.S.175/2016
2. Justice Ajit J. Gunjal (Retd) ,
C/o Arbitration Centre - Karnataka,
3rd Floor, East Wing, Khanija Bhavan,
No.49, Race Course Road,
Bengaluru 560 001.
(Not present)
Date of Institution of the 16.11.2016
suit
Nature of the suit (suit on
pronote, suit for
declaration & Possession, Arbitration Suit
Suit for injunction etc.)
Date of commencement of -
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment
was pronounced 09.06.2021
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
04 06 23
(CHANDRASHEKHAR U),
LXXXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(Exclusive dedicated Commercial Court)
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed the above suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter called 'the 3 Com.A.S.175/2016 Act') to set aside the Arbitration Award, dated 20.08.2016 in AC No.10/2013.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as under:-
The plaintiff is a private limited company, engaged in the business of civil and general construction of large scale industrial and other projects. Among the construction projects successfully completed by the plaintiff at Bengaluru, are packages I & II for the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, of the value of approximately Rs.90 Crores and the Byapanahalli Depot of the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., of the value of approximately Rs.140 Crores. The defendant is a Government owned public sector company under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. The defendant was desirous of getting certain pre-engineered building systems carried out for its proposed "BEML Aerospace Division" at the KIADB Special Economic Zone at Devanahalli, Bengaluru and it is called as "pre-engineered Building System for Industrial Facility". The bid offered by the plaintiff was accepted through online and bid was submitted keeping in mind the certain exemptions from duties and taxes, cess, etc., when the material is brought inside the SEZ area. The offer accepted by the plaintiff was accepted 4 Com.A.S.175/2016 by the defendant and letter of acceptance was issued under reference No. BEML/ASD/Projects/SEZ/PEB/2011-12, dated 1 st March 2012. The total cost of project was Rs.34,72,07,751/-. As per the terms of the contract, the plaintiff had to enter into an agreement with the defendant and the date of commencement of PEB works was 5th March 2012 and stipulated time for completion of the same was on 24.6.2012. As per the terms of the contract, the plaintiff had to furnish Bank Guarantee, accordingly, it furnished the Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs.3,47,20,775/- through the State Bank of India, Erode branch as per the terms and clause No.28 of the General Instructions, the plaintiff was required to execute a formal agreement in a standard format maintained by the defendant within 30 days from the date of letter of acceptance. As per the clause No.6, the formal agreement was not essential for execution of the work and there was delay in furnishing the format of the agreement and after taking the draft agreement, which was used by the plaintiff at Palakkad in Kerala, same was submitted to the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff acquired two acres of land to use as labour camp within 10 acres of land demarcated by the defendant for fabrication and execution of the PEB works. The defendant had appointed M/s Potential Semac Consultant 5 Com.A.S.175/2016 Pvt. Ltd., for the architecture design for the above said project and also for civil works, which is in connection with AC No.11/2013. The plaintiff had taken option -II for the purpose of completion of work under STAG model drawings and it was furnished to the defendant through the consultant. After furnishing the same for MRO, the defendant instructed the plaintiff to design MRO/main Hangar Option-I of contract and whatever done by the plaintiff under option -II went to waste. Further, the design submitted to the consultant on 26.6.2012 for the composite work and on 7.7.2012 for the MRO building after incorporating the observations and suggestions made by the consultant and by the time, the date of completion of the PEB work had already expired. However, the defendant never allowed the plaintiff to carry out the fabrication for PEB works and as per the contract the plaintiff was to execute the contract for the PEB works is designated as a "Special Economic Zone", which designation entitles a host of specific procedures to be followed by the defendant for the movement of men and materials by any third parties into the SEZ. Whenever the material is brought to SEZ area, has to be certified by Nodal Officer appointed by the defendant. There is inordinate delay in appointment of Nodal Officer, Security Personnel, which hamper 6 Com.A.S.175/2016 the execution of the PEB works. Further, there was necessity of approval for setting for setting up the project in the KIADB Aerospace SEZ area. After obtaining necessary certificate from the SEZ Development Commissioner only on 17 th May 2012, which was communicated to the plaintiff on 19 th May 2012. Similarly, the required integrity pact agreement was executed by the plaintiff and defendant on 8 th March 2012 and the approval of the same by the defendant was communicated to the plaintiff only on 16th July 2012. The delay is due to the defendant inaction and nothing on the part of the plaintiff. During the approval period, the defendant gave clearance for procurement of the base plates on 14 th June 2012 through e- mail. Accordingly, material was purchased from M/s ESSAR Steels and in order to get exemptions, there should have been get necessary certificate from the defendant. Further, since there is delay in furnishing format, plaintiff could furnish the agreement, only after necessary its approval. Further, there was a direction by the defendant to submit the final drawing through the consultancy, though it was not the responsibility of the plaintiff. The Plaintiff has further stated that on 27.6.2012 by way of letter, a request was made to the defendant to extend the time for PEB works till 21 st October 2012 having regard to 7 Com.A.S.175/2016 various impediments faced by it on account of non-appointment of Nodal Officer, Security Personnel and also non co-operation from the SEZ authority. Even thereafter, the defendant did not allow the plaintiff to carry out the work stating that PERT chart is required for combined work of PEB as well as civil work, which was not intention of the defendant at the time of pre-bid meeting. Though the plaintiff submitted many letters for extension of the time for the above said reasons, the defendant has not accepted and stuck on to submission of PERT chart and ultimately, made plaintiff to suffer on account of lethargic attitude of the defendant in getting necessary permission and other requirement regarding SEZ area. The plaintiff has suffered loss on account of dumping of materials, appointing laborers and keeping them in the site without any work and thereby sustained huge loss. The contention that PERT chart is necessary is incorrect as it was not agreed at the time of pre-bid meeting. Further, combined PERT chart was not within the scope of the original contract. The defendant was reluctant to furnish the execution and completion of PEB work and deliberately delayed in giving approvals and the contract between the parties was apparently awarded during the period of previous Chairman and Managing Director of the defendant 8 Com.A.S.175/2016 company and the present management is not interested to continue the same. Inspite of issue of letters dated 20 th August 2012, 4th September 2012, the defendant has not permitted the plaintiff to carry out the work on the ground of non-submission of PERT chart and other compliances. Even by September 2012, plaintiff was not permitted to carryout work and it suffered huge loss on account of purchase of materials and human resources and in fact, it has suffered loss to the tune of 12.37 crores. Whatever the letters written to the defendant did not yield any result and on the other hand, it received baseless replies from the defendant company and ultimately the plaintiff by way of reply to the letter dated 19th October 2012 issued by the defendant by way of letter dated 25 th October 2012 stating about true and correct facts and it had already requested the Chairman and Managing Director of the defendant to arbitrate the disputes between the parties by its letter dated 10 th October 2012. The plaintiff has suffered loss to the tune of 12.37 crores as per the claim and accordingly it moved to the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka for appointment of Arbitrator in CMP No.19/2013, it had made claim No.1 for Rs.1,73,50,751/- towards payment for preparation and design and third party approval and claim No.2 for Rs. 20 lakhs that is the return of 9 Com.A.S.175/2016 Bank Guarantee and return of Security Deposit of Rs.3,47,20,775/- and to get the same it has spent Rs.4,40,000/-. It has claimed compensation for loss incurred due to material brought to the site at Rs.1,48,35,191/- and claim No.4 for compensation for expenditure incurred, since the contract could not be performed, at Rs.5,38,07,741.64 and lastly claim No.5 for compensation for loss of profit sustained by the plaintiff or not been performed the contract for the reason that is not attributed, at Rs.5,20,81,162/-. After the appointment of Arbitrator and filing of objection by the defendant, a detailed trial by learned arbitrator and learned arbitrator by his award dated 20th August 2016 partly allowed the claimNo.1, 2, 4 and 5 and rejected the claim No.3. Being aggrieved by the rejection of claim and partly allowing the claim, the present suit is filed on the ground that the impugned award of the Learned Arbitrator is contrary to the evidence on record and probability of the case and also opposed to well settled law. Further the impugned award is opposed to the law and precedent and is liable to be set aside as it squarely falls within the juristic principle as enunciated by the Honble Supreme Court in Associate Builders Vs Delhi Development Authority reported in (2015) 3 SCC 49. The impugned Award of the Arbitrator is in 10 Com.A.S.175/2016 conflict with the public policy of India and against the fundamental policy of law as enunciated in the case of M/s ONGC Ltd., Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. Learned Arbitrator has not compared the real statement submitted by the plaintiff and has not applied its mind to the case on hand. Learned Arbitrator has failed to taken into account the pleadings and evidence on record, particularly the oral submission and detailed written submissions and learned Arbitrator wholly misunderstood the contractual terms between the parties and passed vague award in so far as it relates to terms of the contract on the issues relating to SEZ terms and passed a wholly erroneous award.
The learned Arbitrator has not considered the delay in appointment of Nodal officer furnishing the format of agreement which is condition precedent of commencement of work. The observation of the learned arbitrator regarding the formulation agreement and PERT chart is not correct. The PERT Chart is not a condition precedent for commencement of the work. The learned Arbitrator has not considered the submission of PERT chart on 9th June 2012 by the plaintiff and various correspondence produced at Ex.23, R30, R94, R109, R101, R116, R126 to R128, R130, R136, R138 to R141. It was only on 1st August 2012, the defendant insisted that a combined PERT 11 Com.A.S.175/2016 chart, be submitted which is against the agreement. Learned Arbitrator has failed to see that according to the contract between the consultant of the defendant( Ex.R3). The preparation of GANT/PERT chart/ Activities using software and monitoring of weekly progress was the duty of consultant. This contractual duty was thrust on the plaintiff and plaintiff has endeavored to carry out these obligations and the perusal of the exhibits referred to above will clearly show that the plaintiff was carried out its obligations. The award passed by learned Arbitrator ignoring or excluding relevant material is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Excise Taxation Officer and Assessing authority Vs. Gopinatha and Son, and Kuldip Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and same is liable to be set aside. The plaintiff submitted that further the awarding of tax for the payment etc., is wholly baseless and learned Arbitrator has not taken into account Ex.R5, R53, R71, R84, R94, R96, R97, R99 and R100. Learned Arbitrator has failed to consider other claims and allowed meager sum without considering the actual efforts made by them to get the agreement done and necessary approval from the SEZ authority. Learned Arbitrator has not considered inaction on the part of the defendant. The 12 Com.A.S.175/2016 observation of the learned Arbitrator regarding procurement of steel is contrary to the facts and his observation regarding shop drawings etc., is incorrect. The observation that the designs must be for the fabrication work was not at all utilized and approval of third party etc., is not warranted for the purchase of material. The learned Arbitrator has over looked that the plaintiff had produced Auditor's Certificate Ex.R32 to prove the loss sustained by it. Learned Arbitrator erred in rejecting the whole of the claim and awarding of Rs.10,00,000/- in the place of Rs.5,20,81,163/- is incorrect and learned Arbitrator has not taken to consideration those documents. Learned Arbitrator erred in his award in claim no.5 and failed to take into account the detailed oral and documentary evidence produced by them and admission made by the defendant during the cross- examination. Learned Arbitrator has failed to take into consideration the pleadings and evidence produced by the plaintiff and various Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and passed the impugned Award which are unsupported by the pleadings of the defendant and they are relied on record and the impugned award is opposed to law and public policy of India. Learned Arbitrator committed a serious misconduct that he failed to pass the award in accordance of the pleadings and 13 Com.A.S.175/2016 evidence. Accordingly, it has prayed for setting aside the Arbitral Award, dated 20th August 2016.
3. After appearance, the defendant has filed objection statement denying each and every allegation made in the grounds urged in the suit. It has stated that suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine. It has denied every allegations except the description about company of the defendant and plaintiff assigned the contract and the agreement for PEB work and floating of tender, acceptance of bid offered by the plaintiff., etc. It has stated that it has taken the land, measuring 25 acres from KIADB, which comes under SEZ at Devenahalli for the purpose of activities relating to Aerospace application. The defendant has pad Rs.49,50,20,402/- towards the consideration and simultaneously lease cum sale deed was executed on 15.2.2012. As per the said lease cum sale deed, the defendant required to complete civil construction work, erection of machinery and commence the production within 24 months from 26.4.2011. Further, the defendant fails to comply the same, a penalty of 10% of the lease price for the year might be enforced and thereafter allotment may be cancelled. It has stated that the project includes several individual contract like 14 Com.A.S.175/2016 compound wall construction , pre-engineered building, civil work, electrical work, mechanical piping, fire fighting service, DG sets, sewage plant, drinking water facility, air condition system, canteen, etc., At the time of floating of civil work tender, PEB tender was also quoted and work order was also issued to the plaintiff with the date of commencement from 5.3.2012 and completion on 26.6.2012. The importance of the fact is that both the work i.e., Civil work and PEB work were to be taken place simultaneously. There was no interdependence between two in the sense that to start and complete the fabrication work there was no need for the entire extent of civil work to be completed in all respect in the 25 acres of SEZ land or the vice versa. In accordance with the tender notification condition (PEB), the plaintiff has furnished a performance Bank Guarantee for an amount of Rs.3,47,20,775/- where is up to 31.12.2013 executed by State Bank of India, Commercial branch, Erode. The defendant further stated that, it has appointed M/s Potential Seamac Consultant Pvt Ltd., for architecture consultancy for establishment of its project at Devahalalli Bengaluru. Accordingly, the contract was entered into between the claimant and the respondent company and M/s Potential Seamac Consultant Pvt Ltd., has been appointed as 15 Com.A.S.175/2016 consultant. It is the case of the defendant that as part of the bid processes, the defendant company had organized a pre-bidding meeting on 11.1.2012, wherein the prospective bidders were invited and clarification/details/queries/criteria's were discussed in detail by the defendant and consultants. The consultants had designed and generated the details of bills of quantity along with estimate for both hangars much before contract was awarded through tendering. The defendant has stated further that the design and its criteria along with necessary standard, instruction and tender drawings, documents and all works related to PEB were discussed and answered during the pre-bid meeting, wherein the claimant was also one of the participants. The PEB building consists of several building, in which steel structures were one of the major components. Steel structures were to be manufactured/fabricated at factory set up, and shipped to the project site, for erection and commissioning. The other elements were roof sheeting, cladding along with the framed openings with details of flashings, gutters and other building accessories. The steel structure was a major constituent of PEB building and needs to be fabricated at a factory set up, which several stages of manufacturing processes, like, plate cutting/sharing/bending/welding/ trimming/ 16 Com.A.S.175/2016 brazing/drilling/pre-painting and finish painting etc., in a controlled atmosphere. The raw materials are to be tested for its composition and the property to ensure its suitability on time. In the tender documents all the requirements were brought out and emphasised. It is also stated that such tailor made factory hangars are to be designed, manufactured/erection etc., taking into consideration technical and safety aspects. The defendant has stated that the plaintiff did not comply the preliminary requirement and submission of PERT chart, execution of contract agreement based on the assurance given by the plaintiff that they would immediately be supplied with all the pre requisites and owing to the importance of project, defendant permitted the plaintiff to start execution of earth work, pending compliance of perquisites. Even thereafter, in spite of reminders, the plaintiff did not submit combined PERT chart with resource management, which is condition precedent for completion of work. Regarding existing formalities, the defendant has stated that the project was not completed within the time. The KIADB allotted the required land in SEZ area with a fixed condition that the plaintiff ought to complete civil construction work, erecting machinery and commence the production within 24 months from 26.4.2012 and on its failure to 17 Com.A.S.175/2016 do so, a penalty of 10% of lease amount would be imposed besides cancellation of the lease. The defendant has also claimed counter claim regarding cost of the land, fee, tax consultancy fee, basic infrastructure facility, cost of the machinery purchased, SEZ project management, cost regarding Aero space regional establishment, costs relating to the SEZ project management, project management consultancy charges and also penalty at 10% of the contract value and 10% of over and above of the contract and also loss of business. However, it has challenged rejection of counter claim by way of AS 22/2016 on the file of this Court. It has stated that since the period of Bank Guarantee submitted by the plaintiff towards PEB and the civil contract were to be expired on 31.1.2013 and 27.1e.2013 respectively and the plaintiff did not take any action to renew it and also there was clear breach of contract terms on the part of the plaintiff, the defendant invoked the Bank guarantee, however, the plaintiff's Banker, i.e., State Bank of India, Erode Branch, transferred the amount relating to the civil work of Rs.3,84,32,425 on 26.2.2013 and another Bank Guarantee was expired. It has stated that the Bank Guarantee was un- conditional, irrevocable and based on demand by the defendant and plaintiff has not taken any steps to renew the 18 Com.A.S.175/2016 same. By way of IA-3 filed by the plaintiff seeking direction against the defendant to return the entire Bank Guarantee, the IA came to be dismissed. Thereafter, plaintiff had amended the claim statement and incorporated the relief of return of Bank Guarantee and supplementary claim of Rs.332.85 crores. The defendant has attributed everything on the part of the plaintiff in mobilising men and material at the spot and commencement of the work and submission of the PERT chart , observation of SEZ regulation., etc., It has wholly attributed the responsibility of the plaintiff in delay in completion of the work, it has caused loss to the defendant under the various heads as claimed in AC 11/2013. It has stated about various correspondence and transaction occurred between the plaintiff and defendant regarding necessity of combined PERT chart and drawings, accumulation of men and materials, commencement of work on time and other SEZ regulations and responsibility on the part of the defendant to complete the project within stipulated time to avoid cancellation of the lease deed and imposition of penalty by KIADB. Accordingly, it has prayed for dismissal of suit.
4. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant. 19
Com.A.S.175/2016
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has also submitted written arguments, when the case was posted for reply argument. Accordingly, the case is posted for Judgment.
6. Now, the points that arise for my consideration are:-
1. Whether the plaintiff has made out sufficient grounds to set aside the arbitration award, dated 20th August 2016 passed in AC No.10/2013?
2. What Order ?
7. My findings on the above Points are as under:
1. Point No.1 :- In the Negative.
2. Point No.2 :- As per the final Order for the following reasons.
REASONS
8. POINT NO.1: Learned counsel for the plaintiff would argue that the tender for pre-engineering building system for industrial facility was awarded to the plaintiff through the letter of acceptance, dated 27.2.2012, as per Ex.R6 followed by work order, dated 1.3.2012 at Ex.R8 for a value of Rs.34,72,07,751/. The schedule date of commencement was 5.3.2012 and schedule date of completion was 21.6.2012 i.e., within 16 20 Com.A.S.175/2016 weeks of time. He would further argue that due obstruction created by the defendant against proceeding with the execution of work, in utter violation of conditions of contract, the respondent has committed fundamental breach of obligations which goes to very root of the contract and therefore the defendant is liable to compensate the claimant for claim for Rs.13.85 crores as stated in Para No.44 of the claim statement. The defendant has made counter claim to the tune of Rs.195.18 Crores and some of the counter claims were allowed and some were rejected as per the award in AC No.11/2013 and a separate AS has been filed by the plaintiff as well as the defendant. He would further submit that application dated 3.1.2015, was filed by the plaintiff and it was opposed to by the defendant on the ground of maintainability, after recording of evidence. The main attack of learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the delay was attributed to the defendant for the reason of nonproduction of SEZ documents for getting tax benefits, non-appointment of security and Nodal Officer, which resulted in huge delay. Further, in order to obtain tax exemption for the materials brought to the SEZ area re, thewas delay on the part of the defendant to get clearance, which has to be kept in mind, while deciding the case. According to him, learned Arbitrator though 21 Com.A.S.175/2016 considered these aspects casually has not given findings, regarding the reasons attributed to the defendant for the delay and non-completion of the work. In this regard, he referred to Ex.R93, R8 and other correspondences. In order to import and procure the material, there must be authorization by the authority constituted under SEZ Rules 2006 and the plaintiff had to execute Bond cum legal undertaking in form No.H as per SEZ Rules 2006. The inordinate delay in getting clearance is only on account of the defendant and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be held to be responsible. He would further argue that there was delay in appointment of security and Nodal Officer and Nodal Officer is necessary to certify the invoices relating to materials brought to the SEZ area wherein, the PEB works were to be commenced. The form No. H was executed by the defendant on 17.5.2012 as per Ex.P23, which entitles the plaintiff to have benefit of exemption of tax at 12.3% per annum. The Nodal Officer was appointed subsequently and it is a condition precedent for signing the relevant invoices by him and by SEZ officers. This could be seen from Ex.R5, General Instructions at para No.9 and 9(a). The defendant has to provide all the materials and forms required as per the SEZ guidelines. The defendant appointed Nodal Officer on 14.6.2012 and SEZ 22 Com.A.S.175/2016 invoices were signed by him only on 5.7.2012, which is the main reason for the delay. At this juncture, he would point out the date of schedule for commencement is 5.3.2012, but Nodal Officer was made available on 13.6.2012, who signed the invoices on 5.7.2012, which is the main reason for delay in commencement and completion. According to him, learned Arbitrator though referred to these aspects was reluctant to allow claim No.1, 4 and 5 and assessment made by learned Arbitrator regarding claim No.1, 4 and 5 is incorrect. As far as claim No.2 is concerned, the same has been considered in AC No.11/2013 that is regarding Bank Guarantee. Since there was no Nodal Officer as on the date of schedule date for commencement, the plaintiff cannot be penanalised for that. As far as appointment of Security and formalities etc., is only on account of the failure on the part of the defendant to do the same. He refers to the documents and also the observation made by the learned arbitrator in this regard. After referring to the same, he took the court to the Award at page No.20, para No.52 regarding SEZ regulations, wherein, learned Arbitrator has observed that the PEB works were to be conducted in SEZ area and the factory has to be set up and learned arbitrator has also made reference to the lease obtained by the defendant for 20 23 Com.A.S.175/2016 years and subsequent purchase of property, failure to finish the work within time stipulated, which warrants penalty of 10% etc. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the observation that Nodal officer was appointed on 14.6.2012, though it is subsequent, there was no delay for the plaintiff to furnish necessary document, signed agreement and mobilization of men and materials etc. So, having come to the conclusion that the appointment of Nodal Officer was to facilitate to see that the materials are brought to the area as per the guidelines and being signed by the SEZ officials, the said observation is incorrect.
9. He would further argue regarding the observation regarding PERT Chart, which according to the defendant is a condition precedent for commencement of the work and according to learned counsel for the plaintiff, as per the terms of the contract, the plaintiff had to submit PERT chart for civil work and PEB work and subsequently as per the meeting, the defendant insisted for combined PERT chart, which is not at all the responsibility of the plaintiff. On the other hand, since the defendant had appointed a consultant, in order to see that the work is commenced the plaintiff agreed to submit the same which was taken advantage by the defendant, which resulted 24 Com.A.S.175/2016 in non-completion of the work. According to him, PERT chart is not an essential for commencement of the work. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would attack the observation made by learned Arbitrator that the PERT chart was essential to commence the work. However, as per Ex.R5, dated 1.3.2012, it goes to show that the item wise rate quoted by the plaintiff after considering 1% discount on over all amounting to Rs.34,72,07,751/- without taxes and duties. The said aspect also need reference to the appointment of M/s Potential Semac Consultant Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru for design and detailed consultancy services including project management, research for establishment of building system project for Aerospace manufacturing plant at SEZ Devanahalli. There is a reference to the PERT chart, which stipulates the submission of PERT chart within 7 days from the date of receipt of the letter, Ex.R8. However, there is an indication that, the PERT chart was not submitted on time, which is the main reason for the plaintiff to go away from the contract and commencement of arbitration proceedings. He would further argue that observation regarding Ex.R8 by learned arbitrator, particularly, the letter dated 13.8.2012, it appears that no progress was made and no men and materials were mobilized at the site which is the main 25 Com.A.S.175/2016 reason for delay. While referring to the observation made by learned arbitrator, he would argue that PERT chart was not essential and the reference made by learned arbitrator regarding para No.3 of Ex.R147, which emphasises the requirement of PERT chart. Regarding claim No.1, he would argue that though it was not within the purview of the contractual obligation to prepare the design for PEB work, the defendant had requested the plaintiff to do so and submit the same to the consultant for finalization. The plaintiff exceeded to the request having regard to the urgency expressed by the defendant to start and complete the PEB work. Though the plaintiff prepared the shop drawings got it approved by the 3 rd party as per the terms and submitted to the defendant for clearance, it was again sought to be modified. The learned arbitrator has not considered the reason for delay due to certain modification, which made delay in progress of the work. As far as claim No.1, learned Arbitrator opines by referring to Ex.R94, which stipulates the submission of STAAD model for both building, PEB drawings for both the buildings, base plates and connection design for building and design basis report etc., and same shall be provided after approval of the design. Subsequently, certain mails were exchanged and in order to go 26 Com.A.S.175/2016 ahead with the design as stated above, it appears certain correspondence were made indicating that there was some variation in the type of STAAD model etc., and so, according to learned arbitrator those design were made tentatively and it is observed that the claimant was not ready to execute the work. He also referred to the evidence of PW2, regarding shop drawing and approval of 3rd party etc., So, by referring to Ex.P96 and evidence of PW1 and PW2, particularly Ex.P38, 39 and 40, he restricts the claim to Rs.4,00,000/- regarding the damages claimed by the plaintiff at Rs.1,73,60,751/- by stating that the same was fully established. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would attack the observation regarding claim No.1 and further argue that for non-completion of agreement, non- appointment of Nodal Officer and security personnel or clearance by the SEZ authority. He would argue by referring claim No.1 that since it is a long standing contract where no separate rate has been provided in the contract for preparation of design and shop drawings, the same has been included in the list of items to be done by the claimant. He refers to e-mail at Ex.R71, R94 and other mails regarding approval of the shop drawings by the consultant and with the help of the same he would argue that the shop drawings required more technology 27 Com.A.S.175/2016 and therefore, he has claimed design charges for PEB work is normally more than the normal requirement. But, the claim is restricted as per Ex.P34. So, in order to assess the damages, according to him, when the plaintiff has placed sufficient materials to assess the damages, restriction of the same by learned arbitrator is incorrect. According to him, again he got to assess damages, as he could do on the materials available. He is not justified in estimating the damage merely because the plaintiff could not adduce the best evidence. According to him, when the plaintiff has placed materials to show that the defendant has committed breach, then restriction of loss, restriction of claim is not proper and learned counsel for plaintiff relies upon the decision in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Bhaskarn reported in AIR 1985 Kerala 49. Of course, there is no dispute about this fact. So, according to learned counsel for the plaintiff, PW1 and 2 have given evidence, which is sufficient to decide the case. But, learned arbitrator though not referred to the decision, has given reasons, while restricting the claim No.1 for Rs.4,00,000/-. Therefore, I do not find any mistake, so as to interfere with the findings as scope is limited under Section 34. There must be evidence to show that how the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.1,73,60,387/- towards payment of 28 Com.A.S.175/2016 design, there must be some basis, I do not find any such basis and learned arbitrator by thorough examination, has rightly restricted the claim to Rs.4,00,000/-. Now, coming to claim No.3 as claim No.2 relates to Bank guarantee which has been discussed in connected AS No.176/2016. The claim No.2 relates to compensation for loss due to construction materials brought to site for execution of PEB work and disposal from SEZ area of the defendant and claim is Rs.1,48,34,181/-. Learned Arbitrator has rejected the same by referring to Section 73 of the Contract Act. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would argue that, the plaintiff has moblised all resources such as steel plates, DG sets, welding machine and skilled labour etc., in order to complete the PEB work in a very short span of 15 weeks. It has procured about 945 MT of special quality steels, within 1 st week of June 2012, which constituted 80% of total project requirement. He would further argue that the plaintiff had invested a sum of Rs.7 Corers in preparing the site for erecting of PEB work on site preparation, infrastructure and hiring of machineries etc. The learned arbitrator has discussed about materials brought to the site and taken back and the request made by the plaintiff as per email at Ex.R2 for starting of fabrication work etc. However, he has opined that PERT chart 29 Com.A.S.175/2016 was not forthcoming even after mail Ex.R93. Subsequently, the plaintiff requested the defendant to take out the MS plates or communicate the concurrence for disposal of MS steel etc., and subsequently all the materials were taken back and disposed of. Ofcourse, the plaintiff must have suffered a little about costs, which was incurred by him and also costs, he received on public auction of the materials. Learned Arbitrator has referred to Section 73 of Indian Contract Act regarding how to assess the damage or loss and he rejected the same for the ground that nothing is placed to prove the actual damage caused to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff claims Rs.1,48,35,181/-, there must be something on record to show that he has sustained to that extent, then what is the document placed by him before learned Arbitrator has to be seen. He referred to Ex.R69 relating to request made by the plaintiff to take over the steel plates. However, the defendant has not accepted it and as per Ex.P33 he requested the defendant to take MS plates and use for their project, so as to minimize the loss. However, the defendant refused to accept it for reason that it cannot use the same for any future project. However, it has approved for removal of the same from the site for the purpose of public auction. The plaintiff has placed certain documents regarding auction made 30 Com.A.S.175/2016 by it and amount recovered and balance amount, which it is entitled to collect. However, whether the defendant is liable to pay is a question. In view of non-compliance of PERT chart and other conditions, which ultimately led the plaintiff to go away from the contract and seek for arbitration. So, when we peruse the entire evidence and documents, I think though the learned Arbitrator has rejected with some reasons, does not mean that the rejection is incorrect. So, since, the plaintiff has taken all the materials and sold in public auction, the damages if any are mitigated. As far as claim No.4 is concerned, which relates to compensation for expenditure incurred, since the contract could not be performed for the reason not attributed to the plaintiff at Rs.5,38,07,741/- and learned counsel for the plaintiff would argue that it has spent Rs.65,36,062/- for site establishment and site overhead, tools and plant and other construction and set of overhead, regional office overhead, actual amount paid to State Bank of India, compensation for loss of business due to blockage of working capital, insurance premium, contingency liability, etc., and he refers to Ex.P82 to P87 and also Ex.P81 to 86 and Auditor certificate at Ex.32 and according to him, he is entitled to claim as per the Contract Act. The learned Arbitrator has referred page No.29, para No.30 and 31, discussed with 31 Com.A.S.175/2016 and restricted the claim to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/- towards compensation and it is observed that Ex.P81, 84, 86 cannot be treated as gospel truth to grant such a huge compensation for raising head office etc. Now, referring to claim No.5, i.e., compensation for loss of earning and willful failure on the part of the defendant to execute the work at Rs.5,20,81,153/-. It is observed by the learned arbitrator about the loss sustained by the plaintiff and assessed at 10 lakhs. According the learned counsel for the plaintiff the said compensation awarded by the learned arbitrator is without any basis and in spite of furnishing all the documents, the learned arbitrator has not considered, which is against evidence and documents on record and against the public policy. Of course, learned arbitrator directed to refund the Bank Guarantee with interest and awarded the claim with interest at 18% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of award and on failure to pay the same, future interest at 18% is also granted. So, with the help of these materials, he would argue that learned arbitrator has failed to consider the documents produced by the plaintiff and failed to note that the delay is due to the defendant in appointing Nodal Officer and security personnel and get clearance of SEZ authority. With this background he would argue by referring to the decision in the 32 Com.A.S.175/2016 case of Kuldip Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and others reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10, which speaks about that when the authorities fail to consider the evidence and both the oral and documentary evidence, according to him, when authority is expected to act prudently and failed perform, then the plaintiff cannot be blamed for that. I do not know how the above decision is helpful to the plaintiff and nothing is canvassed about this decision. He would submit the decision in the case of Dwaraka Das Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 500, which relates to the work order entrusted by the State and interference by the Superintendent Engineer in the progress of the work on the ground that the Appellant had not completed 10% of the work and it is held in the said decision that, the interference by the High Court is not proper when the Trial Court has granted damages with interest. There is a reference to Section 73 of the Contract Act and it is held to be proper, when the Trial Court granted damages along with interest at 10% per annum. So, with the help of the above decision, he would argue that, the learned Arbitrator had reduced the damages, which according to him is not fair. Therefore, it is against the law of the land and learned Arbitrator fails to consider Section 73 of the Contract 33 Com.A.S.175/2016 Act, to assess the damages then, it is against the public policy, which attract the interference by way of setting aside the award under Section 34 of the Act. To strengthen further, he would rely upon the decision in the case of ONGC Ltd., Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd., reported in 2003 (5) SCC 1975, wherein, their lordships have referred to various decisions, particularly in the case of Renusagar Power Company Ltd., Vs. General Insurance Company, Jan Vs. Driefontein Consolidated Gold Mines Ltd., and other decisions and ultimately, he has come to the conclusion that the Award can be set aside for the reason mentioned in Section 34 (2)(a) iv, 24, for the reason stated in Section 28(a), for the reason stated in section 34 (2)
(b) ii on the ground of conflict with the public policy of India that is the say, if it is contrary to fundamental policy of law, interest of India, justice or morality and if it is patently illegal and for the reasons stated in Section 35 of the Act. After referring to the above said conclusion, he would also refer to 45 relating to Section 73 and 74 of the Contract Act, how to assess the damages and willful default. So, with the help of above decision, he would argue that learned Arbitrator has not considered the terms of the contract to arrive at conclusion, whether the party is entitled to receive the claim from the party 34 Com.A.S.175/2016 who has broken the contract. Further, if terms are clear and unambiguous stipulating the liquidated damages in case of breach of the contract unless it is held that such estimate of damages/ compensation is unreasonable or is by way of penalty, party who has committed the breach is required to pay such compensation and that is what is provided in Sec. 73 of Indian Contract Act. So, with the help of the above decision and particularly, the observation made in para No.68, he would argue that the learned arbitrator has failed to consider all these aspects. Therefore, it is against public policy and law of the land and therefore, the award is liable to be set aside. Of course, there is no dispute about this aspect and I do consider that Section 73 and 74 of the Contract provides for determination of damages. Learned Arbitrator has considered the documents produced by the plaintiff to claim huge damages and according to the learned Arbitrator, those documents are not sufficient to award damages under claim No.4 and mitigation of claim No.3 and 4. According to the arbitrator, after referring to the evidence and various email sand those documents are not sufficient to believe that the plaintiff sustained damages. There is nothing to interfere by this Court as this Court cannot act as Appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence, both the oral and 35 Com.A.S.175/2016 documentary evidence. Of course in a single sentence learned Arbitrator has stated that since the plaintiff has taken the materials back, the damages if any is mitigated. Therefore, the above decision is of no help to the present case. The another decision is in the case of Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority reported in (2015) 3 SCC 49, which speaks about when an Arbitral Award can be set aside. It is also stated the need of judicial approach while deciding under fundamental policy of Indian law. The juristic principle of judicial approach demands that the decision is reasonable and objective. The duty to adopt a judicial approach arises from the very nature of the Power exercised by the Court or the authority does not have to be separately or additionally enjoined upon the for a concerned. What must be remembered is that the importance of a judicial approach in judicial and quasi judicial determination lies in the fact that so long and the Court, tribunal or the authority exercising powers that affect the rights or obligations of the parties before them shows fidelity to judicial approach, they ensure that the authority acts bonafide and deals with the subject in a fair, reasonable and objective manner and that its decision is not actuated by any extraneous consideration. With this back ground, we have to analyze the 36 Com.A.S.175/2016 entire award, wherein, the Arbitrator has followed the procedure contemplated under the Act and Arbitration Rules. The Arbitrator has given enough opportunity to the parties to adduce the evidence and produce the documents. Learned Arbitrator has not considered the documents for the reason that documents produced cannot be treated as gospel truth to come to the conclusion that plaintiff has suffered loss, relating to in claim No.3, 4 and 5. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the Arbitrator has not considered at all the documents produced by them. The mere production of documents and marking is not sufficient unless it is shown that the plaintiff has suffered the damages to the tune of Rs.5,38,07,741/- as per claim No.4., Rs.1,48,35,181/- as per claim No.3 and Rs.5,20,81,153/- as per claim No.5. It is easy to make any claim, but difficult to prove. The Arbitrator is a chosen Judge by the parties and he has given enough opportunity for the party to prove their case. When we peruse the cross-examination of PW1 and 2, there is no doubt about the observation made by the learned Arbitrator regarding grant of compensation. What is the basis for claiming compensation has to be pleaded and proved by the plaintiff or by the defendant, in these aspects the parties have failed to prove their case . Therefore, I do not find fault with the 37 Com.A.S.175/2016 compensation granted under claim No.3 and 4, 5. So in view of the above fact the decision quoted by plaintiff as stated above is not helpful to him to demonstrate that the Arbitrator has not followed the procedure and failed to consider the documents and acted against the law of the land, which entitles the plaintiff for setting aside the above award. Therefore, the above decision is not helpful to the plaintiff.
10. Now, coming to the argument canvassed by learned counsel for the defendant, he would argue that the claimant is not entitled to claim No.1, 2, 4 and 5 and the order passed by learned Arbitrator is erroneous. To support his claim, learned counsel for the plaintiff would argue by referring to decision in the case of Salem Advocates Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344 and in the case of Vinod Seth Vs. Devinder Bajaj Singh reported in 2010 SCC 1 and lastly the decision in the case of and in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Jain Vs. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust and others reported in (2012) 1 SCC 455 to attack the awarding of costs by learned arbitrator, by partly allowing the claim Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. According to learned Arbitrator in Arbitration case No. AC 11/2013 the cost is made easy, but in the present case, learned arbitrator has allowed the claims by 38 Com.A.S.175/2016 granting interest at 18% per annum, which is unwarranted in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. He mainly referred to para Nos.48, 49 of the Judgment in Vinod Seth to contend that costs can be awarded only when the claim is false, vitiated, frivolous etc. and the costs should ensure the provisions of code, the Evidence Act and other laws governing procedure are scrupulously and strictly complied with and that parties do not adopt delaying tactics or mislead the Court. Normally, the cost should follow the event and the Court shall have power to determine by whom or out of what property, and to what extent such costs are to be paid. So, the main concern of learned counsel for the defendant is c that in the present case, the petition was allowed with costs of arbitration, which has to be paid by the defendant, but, in connected AC 11/2013, though certain counter claims were allowed, cost was made easy. Therefore, the defendant being a Central Government undertaking, cannot be burdened with liability to pay costs. So, the sum and substance of the arguments that the costs awarded by learned arbitrator is incorrect and same requires to be interfered.
11. Learned counsel for the defendant would further argue that the Arbitrator having observed that the plaintiff has not 39 Com.A.S.175/2016 furnished combined PERT chart and caused delay in commencement of the work, should not have allowed the claim Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, that too with interest at 18% per annum. He would further argue that the defendant has obtained the land from KIADB, Bengaluru SEZ at Devenahalli, by paying Rs.49,50,20,402/- and entered into a lease deed for 30 years. It was a lease deed cum sale deed and if project is not commenced and completed within time, then, the defendant is liable to pay penalty at 10% including the cancellation of the lease. So, in view of the above fact, the defendant appointed M/s Potential Seamac Consultant Pvt Ltd., regarding consultancy service and also preparing STAD, drawings etc. The PERT chart was one of the condition precedent for commencement of the work, which has to be submitted by the plaintiff through the consultant for approval or else there cannot be control over the work done, expenditure made and also quality of the construction. In spite of many reminders, the plaintiff has not submitted the PERT chart, which ultimately led the contract to come to an end and initiation of the arbitration proceedings. The plaintiff was required to give shop drawings and its design and all information relating to design shall be submitted to consultant for approval and the contractor should work in 40 Com.A.S.175/2016 coordination with other contractors and agents, such as consultant, electrical contractor etc. It was necessary for the plaintiff to furnish the drawings to IIT Professor for approval before submitting to the defendant. Though there was direction to furnish the PERT chart within 7 days from the date of receipt of work order, the plaintiff has not done the same and this aspect has been observed by the learned Arbitrator in his impugned award. The scope of the work of tender document includes submission of the short drawings, and its design and all information relating to design to the consultant for its approval. The consultant had designed and generated detail bill of quantity along with estimation for both the hangers which are awarded to contractor. The PW1 during the cross examination, has admitted that the requirement is one of the mandates for the contract. He also admits about Ex.P1 and that it contemplates approval of drawings, obtaining of SEZ clearance. Further, he has also admitted at page No.46 above facts that without approval of drawings and designs no one should commence the work. So, according to the learned counsel for the defendant, the PW1 having admitted all these aspects and learned arbitrator having come to conclusion that the combined PERT chart is a condition precedent, should not have allowed 41 Com.A.S.175/2016 the claim of the plaintiff that too with costs. The defendant has paid statutory licence fee and drawings fee at Rs.34,20,535/- spent various amount towards basic infrastructure facility, high value machines, services of technical persons, appointment of field manager, etc. and also the consultant charges, etc. So, having paid so much of amount in the connected case, the learned Arbitrator has not awarded cost, and in the present case awarded cost is improper. According to him, the claimant has not suffered any damages and it is on account of its incapacity to carry out the work, mobilizing the resource, ie., men and materials, is the main reason for delay and going away from the contract. There is inordinate delay in commencement of the work. Though, the plaintiff was authorized to carryout the work before signing the agreement and it was mentioned in the correspondence that the delay caused on account of the getting necessary clearance from the SEZ authority or furnishing of format of agreement , etc., can be accounted by the defendant, but not the delay caused by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to prove the loss sustained by it and the learned Arbitrator has not taken into consideration all these aspects. On the other hand, the plaintiff brought pressure from some Ministers for payment 42 Com.A.S.175/2016 of work and extension of time which is highly incorrect. Further, it is held that the time was essence of the contract by the learned Arbitrator. Therefore, when the contract stipulates for commencement of the work and completion of the work within scheduled time, the plaintiff should have taken utmost interest in commencement and completion of the work. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the claim made under claim Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5. He refers provision of Section 51 to 57 of the Contract Act, to contend that the contract consisted reciprocal promises to be performed by the plaintiff and respondent and the plaintiff has failed to adhere to the terms of the contract. Learned counsel refers to various documents and length and width of the shed, when work is to be commenced and when work has to be completed, why Bank Guarantee was necessary. He referred to evidence of PW1 and 2 and Ex.P1 to P91 and ExR1 to R45 and learned arbitrator has framed issues and after referring to issues and the reasons given by learned Arbitrator, while allowing and rejecting the claim of the plaintiff, has not given clear findings as to how the plaintiff is entitled to certain contract. He referred to para Nos.18 to 25 of the contention raised regarding requirement of PEB structure, design criteria etc. and how the PEB structure has to be raised and what should 43 Com.A.S.175/2016 be the measurement and where it should be done. As per paragraph No.19, the steel structure was a major component for PEB building and needs to be fabricated in factory set up with several agents of manufacturing processes, like cutting, bending, welding, drilling, etc., and the plaintiff to carry out the said work, started temporary shed out side the SEZ area without obtaining necessary permission and the manner in which it is conducted, goes to show that the plaintiff is not in a position to manufacture PEB design and establishment to be erected in the SEZ area and each and every work must be inspected by a qualified certified welder to find out any mistake in the welding process. It is necessary to ensure strength of the structure, which are tailor made design and to get third party certification by IIT professor. So, after canvassing as above, he argued about how and why the plaintiff was selected as a successful bidder. The plaintiff started a temporary shed about 2 km away from BEML site and the plaintiff was not supposed to bring material inside and start the work. So, carrying out of the work in the temporary shed, would always lead to apprehension of low quality of work. Since combined PERT chart was condition precedent for contract, in spite of repeated reminders, the same was not 44 Com.A.S.175/2016 submitted by the plaintiff and therefore, he walked away from the contract. According to him, to claim costs, damages, there must be document to show that the plaintiff company has suffered loss on account of the belated attitude of the defendant etc. Learned Arbitrator has awarded claim No.1, 3, 4 and 5 partly, but the said finding is without any basis. In fact, all the claims should have been rejected. I have gone through the entire evidence of PW1 and 2 and RW1 and also documents produced by the parties before the arbitrator. I have perused the admission of PW1 and 2 and learned Arbitrator has considered all these aspects in his impugned award. Of course, some of the points learned Arbitrator has not discussed elaborately, but he has come to just conclusion based upon the work done by the plaintiff, the material brought to the site, expenditure incurred for transportation of the same and disposal after walking away from the contract, the delay in getting SEZ clearance and appointment of Nodal Officer etc.
12. Now, coming to legal aspects, under Section 34 of the Act, an Award can be set aside only if it is against public policy of India, interest of India, justice or morality or conflicting with the law of the land. The Award can also be set aside when learned Arbitrator fails to consider the evidence placed before 45 Com.A.S.175/2016 him. If it is shown that non consideration of material evidence placed before him and law applicable to the case, then, it amounts to patent illegality. There is no allegation of fraud or corruption against the learned Arbitrator. The procedure contemplating under provision of the Act has been followed and enough opportunities were given to the parties to adduce evidence, for cross-examination of witnesses at length and also for arguments. The parties were also permitted to furnish written arguments with decisions. So, there is nothing to show that Learned Arbitrator has not followed any procedure contemplated under the Act. Since, the Arbitrator is a chosen Judge by the parties, unless it is shown that he has acted against the material placed before him or he has not answered the reference, but, something else, then of course, it amounts to patent illegality. He has also answered to the reference, to the evidence, both documentary and oral evidence and also on the basis of the law laid down by the Apex Court regarding setting aside of the Arbitral Award. When we peruse the entire papers, there is nothing to show that learned Arbitrator has exceeded his limits or failed to consider material evidence or acted against the law of the land, then there is nothing to set aside the arbitration award. I do feel that the plaintiff has tried its level 46 Com.A.S.175/2016 best to get the work done and in the same tiem, the defendant was also co-operating, but with some delay on account of certain official formalities. Since, it is a contract between a company and a Government undertaking, normally, there would be some delay on the part of the Government for want of quick decision, for which the plaintiff has been compensated by the learned Arbitrator. Even learned Arbitrator has allowed the counter claim in connected case to some extent, for the loss sustained by the defendant. Though, it is not adequate, an attempt has been made by the learned Arbitrator to keep in mind relevancy of the contract, who committed fault and what is the reasons for walking away from the contract. So, in view of the above fact, I do not find any grounds much less one stated under Sec. 34 of the Act to set aside the award as contended by the plaintiff. Regarding awarding costs, I do not find any fault in the award, as the plaintiff has tried to finish the work and mobilized men and material, kept them idle for so many months. In view of the above, the decisions cited by learned counsel for defendant are of no help in the present case. Hence, I answer point No.1 is in the Negative.
13. POINT No.2 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following Order.
47
Com.A.S.175/2016 ORDER The suit/petition filed by the plaintiff U/S. 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is dismissed. No costs.
Return the L.C.R to Arbitration Centre (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me through V.C on this the 9th day of June, 2021).
(CHANDRASHEKHAR U), LXXXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Exclusive dedicated commercial Court) Bengaluru.
sk 09.06.2021 P 1- R1- R2 -
For Judgment
The Judgment is pronounced
through V.C vide separate
Judgment. The operative
portion of the said Judgment
is as follows :-
ORDER
The suit/petition filed by the
48
Com.A.S.175/2016
plaintiff U/S. 34 of Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996 is
dismissed. No costs.
Return the L.C.R to Arbitration
Centre
LXXXVII ACC&SJ,
B'LURU.