Madras High Court
M/S.Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs M/S.Everett (India) Private Limited on 14 March, 2019
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :14.03.2019
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
O.P.Nos.146 & 147 of 2017
M/s.Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited,
A Govt. of India Undertaking
Regional Operations Division
Material services
1st Floor, Old No.165, New No.338,
Thambu Chetty Street,
Chennai – 600 001. .. Petitioner in both OPs
vs.
M/s.Everett (India) Private Limited,
Head Office at No.31, Ganesh Chandra Avenue,
And Branch office at
No.108, Armenian Street
Catholic Centre 1st Floor
Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondent in both OPs
Prayer in O.P.Nso.146 & 147 of 2017: Original Petitions filed under
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the
Award dated 6th October 2016 made in Arbitration Case Nos.16(A) of 2015 &
16(B) of 2015 respectively on the file of the Sole Arbitrator, Mr.Justice.
S.Rajeswaran.
For Petitioner in both OPs : Mr.A.V.Arun
For Respondent in both OPs : Mr.P.Giridharan
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
This common order will dispose of both the aforesaid 'Original Petitions' ('OPs' for brevity). There is one petitioner and one respondent in each of the OPs. For the sake of convenience and clarity 'O.P.No.146 of 2017' shall be referred to as 'senior OP' and 'O.P.No.147 of 2017' shall be referred to as 'junior OP'.
2. The petitioner and respondent in both the OPs i.e., senior and junior OP are the same and counsel appearing for petitioner and respondent in both OPs are also the same.
3. To be noted, both OPs have been filed under Section 34 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996' ('A & C Act' for brevity) assailing two separate arbitral awards. To be noted, both the arbitral awards are dated 06.10.2016. The 'arbitral award, which is assailed in the senior OP' shall be referred to as 'impugned award I' and the 'arbitral award, which is assailed in the junior OP' shall be referred to as 'impugned award II' for the sake of convenience and clarity.
4. Before I proceed further, it is made clear that Section 34 of A & C Act is slotted under Chapter VII of A & C Act, which is captioned 'RECOURSE http://www.judis.nic.in 3 AGAINST ARBITRAL AWARD'. A plain reading of Section 34 of A & C Act, brings to light that any recourse against an arbitral award i.e., recourse seeking to set aside an arbitral award shall be made only by an 'application' under Section
34. This is clearly articulated in Section 34(1) of A & C Act, which reads as follows:
'Section 34 (1). Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub-section(3).'
5. Be that as it may, as far as, legal proceedings assailing the arbitral awards, the nomenclature 'Original Petition' is being given by the Registry and therefore, I am referring to the instant proceedings as OPs, senior OP, junior OP etc., for the sake of convenience and clarity.
6. Today, Mr.A.V.Arun, learned counsel on record for petitioner in both senior and junior OPs and Mr.P.Giridharan, learned counsel on record for respondent in both senior and junior OPs are before this Court. Petitioner in both senior and junior OPs is 'Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited' and the same shall be referred to as 'BHEL' for the sake of brevity and clarity. Respondent in both senior and junior OPs is one Everett (India) Private Limited and this Court is informed that respondent company is charterer of a Vessel, which was deployed for carrying some cargo for BHEL and demurrage charges claimed by http://www.judis.nic.in 4 Everett (India) Private Limited is the subject matter of both senior and junior OPs. Therefore, respondent in senior and junior OPs, namely 'Everett (India) Private Limited' shall be referred to as 'carrier' for the sake of convenience and clarity.
7. Brief facts that are absolutely imperative for appreciating this order are set out infra under the caption 'Factual Matrix in a nutshell'.
8. FACTUAL MATRIX IN A NUTSHELL:
8 (i). It is not in dispute that BHEL floated tenders on 03.03.2010 and invited bids for carrying certain cargo, which this Court is informed is in the nature of bulk equipment i.e., engineering equipment. There were two tenders because one consignment had to be carried from Chennai Port to Sudan Port and the other consignment had to be carried from Visakhapatnam Port to Sudan Port.
8(ii) It is not in dispute that respondent carrier was the successful bidder qua both tenders and the work of carrying the consignment was awarded to the carrier by BHEL.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5 8(iii). It is also not in dispute that both the consignments were carried in one Vessel, which goes by the name 'MV OXL Samurai'. It is submitted that this Vessel commenced its voyage from Visakhapatnam port in East Cost and proceeded to destination port in Sudan via West Coast where the Bombay port lies. In other words, both the consignments were carried in the same Vessel. Though one consignment was carried from Visakhapatnam to Sudan and the other consignment was carried from Bombay to Sudan. To be noted, the consignment which was carried from Mumbai to Sudan, was originally scheduled to be carried from Chennai to Sudan, but, BHEL informed the carrier about difficulty in reaching the consignment to Chennai Port and after negotiations, amended work order was issued and Mumbai port was fixed as load Port, parties agreed to the same and therefore, the second consignment carried in the same Vessel which was originally scheduled to be carried from Chennai to Sudan was ultimately carried from Mumbai to Sudan.
8(iv). There is no dispute or disagreement before this Court with regard to the obtaining factual position that consignments were carried and that the carriage of such consignments were in what is described in industry parlance as 'Hook to Hook' basis. It is also explained by both the counsel that Hook to Hook carriage necessarily means from the time the consignment is lifted from the load Port or in other words, lifted by a hook into the Vessel for http://www.judis.nic.in 6 carriage to the time when it is downed from and out of the Vessel through a hook in the port of discharge. There is no dispute or disagreement on these aspects of the matter also.
8(v). Be that as it may, disputes arose between BHEL and the carrier regarding demurrage charges. To be noted, demurrage for detention of Vessel. Also to be noted, there was no dispute with regard to freight for the carriage.
8(vi). Be that as it may, it is the case of carrier that the aforesaid Vessel, which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'said Vessel' for the sake of convenience and clarity, was detained in Vizag Port for 4.76 days between 25.03.2010 and 29.03.2010. It is also the carrier's case that said Vessel was detained in Mumbai Port between 23.04.2010 and 04.05.2010. This Court is informed by both counsel that the claim is on hourly basis. To be noted, ultimately vide impugned award, delay was held to be for 9.75 days between 25.04.2010 and 04.05.2010 computed on hourly basis.
8(vii). It is the specific case of carrier that detention of said Vessel in the aforesaid manner in the two load ports was owing to delay on the part of BHEL in handing over the consignment or in other words, making available the http://www.judis.nic.in 7 consignment in such a manner which could be hooked or taken by hook into the said Vessel for onwards voyage.
8(viii). BHEL disputed aforesaid claim resulting in arbitrable disputes. 8(ix). Suffice to say that both parties before me submit that an 'Arbitral Tribunal ('AT' for brevity) was constituted by a sole arbitrator.
8(x). AT entered reference and arbitration commenced. 8(xi). Before the AT, both parties filed claim statements, statements of defence as well as rejoinder statements, pleadings were completed, issues were framed, oral and documentary evidence was let in. As far as the senior OP, which pertains to carriage from Vizag to Sudan, the claim made by the carrier before AT is as follows:
Particulars Amount
Towards Detention Charges duly US$. 71,400/-
admitted by Respondents vide letter
dated 11.05.2010 and 12.05.2010
Interest @ 18% per annum on the US$.109097/-
above Amount contained in para 1 i.e.
http://www.judis.nic.in
8
Particulars Amount
(USD. 71,400/-) from 07.04.2010 till
the date of filing of Statement of
Claim i.e. 07.11.2015
TOTAL US$180,497/-
8(xii). As far as junior OP is concerned claim made by the carrier before the AT is as follows:
Particulars Amount
Towards Detention Charges duly US$. 1,46,250/-
admitted by Respondents vide letter
dated 11.05.2010 and 12.05.2010
Interest @ 18% per annum on the US$.218,447/-
above Amount contained in para 1 i.e.
(USD. 1,46,250/-) from 06.05.2010 till
the date of filing of Statement of
Claim i.e. 06.11.2015
TOTAL US$364,697/-
8(xiii). In the senior OP, AT framed 10 issues, which read as follows:
'1) Whether under work order dated 20.03.2010, the cargo had to be lifted before 31.03.2010 from the port of loading being Vishakhapatnam?
2) Whether the Respondent caused delay in handling over the cargo as per the work order dated 20.03.2010?
3) Whether the Claimant is entitled to levy detention charges under the work order dated 03.03.2010?
http://www.judis.nic.in 9
4) Whether the Claimant had performed their responsibility under the tender dated 02.03.2010 and as per the work order dated 20.03.2010?
5) Whether the Respondent admitted their liability to pay the outstanding detention charges?
6) Whether the Claimant is entitled to claim the detention charges prior to 31.03.2010, when the loading of the cargo commenced on 30.03.2010 itself?
7) Whether the Claimant is entitled to the detention charges when the Vessel was anchored at the roads from 25.03.2010 till 29.03.2010?
8) Whether the claim is barred by limitation?
9) Whether the Claimant is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 18 p.a on the outstanding detention amount as Claimed for?
10) To what other reliefs?' 8(xiv). In the junior OP, AT framed 10 issues, which read as follows:
'1) Whether the Respondent caused delay in handing over the cargo in terms of the work order dated 22.03.2010?
2) Whether the cargo was loaded on or before 21.04.2010, as per the amended work order dated 07.04.2010?
3) Whether the Claimant is entitled to levy detention charges in terms of the tender dated 03.03.2010?
4) Whether the Claimant had performed their responsibility under the tender dated 03.03.2010 and as per the work order dated 22.03.2010 and amended work order dated 07.04.2010?
http://www.judis.nic.in 10
5) Whether the Respondent admitted their liability to pay the outstanding detention charges?
6) Whether the Vessel was berthed for loading the cargo of the Respondent only on 04.05.2010, after effecting repairs to the Vessel?
7) Whether the Vessel was loading other cargos and made ready for the cargo of the Respondent on 04.05.2010?
8) Whether the Vessel was at anchorage till 28.04.2010?
9) Whether the Claimant is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the outstanding detention amount as claimed for?
10) To what other reliefs?
8(xv). As far as oral evidence is concerned, it is not in dispute that the same individuals deposed in both claims, which are subject matter of senior and junior OPs. On behalf of claimant, one witness namely one Mr. Rajeev Raghavan, who is described as Director of the carrier was examined as CW 1. On behalf of BHEL, two individuals one Mr.R.Baskeran, who is described as Senior Manager and one Mr.K.Sivaramakrishnan, who is described as Deputy General Manager (Finance) were examined as RW1 and RW 2 respectively.
8(xvi). In senior OP, on the side of the claimant, 21 exhibits namely Exs.C1 to C21 were marked and on the side of the respondent, 2 exhibits namely Exs.R1 and R2 were marked.
http://www.judis.nic.in 11 8(xvii) . In junior OP, on the side of the claimant, 24 exhibits namely Exs.C1 to C24 were marked and on the side of the respondent one exhibit namely Ex.R1 was marked.
8(xviii). To be noted, in the impugned award II, which is subject matter of junior OP, list of witnesses has not been set out, but both the learned counsel agree without dispute that it is a matter of fact that the same individuals were examined as CW1 as well as RW1 and RW2 in arbitral proceedings pertaining to senior and junior OPs. This undisputed position is recorded.
8(xix). Ultimately, AT passed impugned award I, wherein and whereby the entire claim of carrier was allowed i.e., prayer of the carrier was acceded to in its entirety.
8(xx). With regard to impugned award II, while the carrier, as mentioned supra, had made a claim of 364,697 USD, AT after computation, awarded 66,35,085/- INR. In both impugned awards i.e., impugned award I and impugned award II, AT had awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. http://www.judis.nic.in 12 8(xxi). With regard to senior OP, as mentioned supra, the claim of the carrier has been acceded to in its entirety. However, with regard to junior OP, the claim of the carrier was allowed in part. Be that as it may, learned counsel for carrier submits, on instructions, that the carrier has not filed any OP under Section 34 of A & C Act assailing impugned award II. In other words, carrier accepts impugned award II. This is recorded.
9. A perusal of the previous proceedings of this Court dated 13.02.2019 and 11.03.2019 reveals that both senior and junior OPs were not admitted, but notice was issued. Therefore, it is listed under the caption 'NOTICE REGARDING ADMISSION' today (14.03.2019). With the consent of both parties, OPs were taken up. In this backdrop, both instant OPs were heard out today by this Court.
10. Learned counsel for BHEL, submitted that specific legal ground on which impugned award I and impugned award II are assailed is that they are in conflict with public policy of India.
11. The submissions of learned counsel for BHEL can be summarised as follows:
a) The claim is one for Liquidated Damages, which is http://www.judis.nic.in 13 covered by Section 74 of the Contract Act and the determinants of Section 74 of Contract Act have given a go by the impugned award I & Impugned award II.
b) The demurrage, if at all can be claimed, only beyond 31.03.2010 and as long as the consignment was loaded in the Vessel prior to 31.03.2010, there cannot be breach and the carrier cannot claim demurrage ( in support of this submission Ex.C1 was pressed into service).
12. Responding to the above two grounds, on which challenge to impugned award I and impugned award II are predicated, learned counsel for carrier made submissions, which are as follows:
a) The claim made by the carrier is not Liquidated Damages, but it is clearly a demurrage claim for detention, which is in the nature of laycan claim, which emanates from the terms of the contract itself.
b) It is incorrect to say that breach will occur only on/after 31.03.2010, as there was adequate evidence before AT to show that the aforesaid detention of said Vessel in Vizag and Bombay ports is owing to delay on the part of BHEL in making available the consignment for being hooked and lifted into the said Vessel.
http://www.judis.nic.in 14
13. This takes us to an analysis of the arguments advanced before this Court.
14. Both learned counsel took this Court through Ex.C1.
15. Adverting to Ex.C1, learned counsel for BHEL submitted that claim of demurrage is at the rate of 15,000/- USD per day.
16. Responding to this, learned counsel for respondent submitted that it is only a price bid format forming part of Ex.C1 i.e., tender documents and therefore, this cannot be construed as Liquidated Damages much less Liquidated Damages within the meaning of Section 74 of the Contract Act.
17. With regard to the contention of BHEL that breach, if any, will occur only after 31.03.2010, it was submitted that a perusal of Price Bid Format clearly refers to Laycan and Laycan makes it clear that full quantity of cargo is likely to be available around 20th March 2010 and that the last date for lifting the cargo from both the ports is 31st March 2010. Laycan reads as follows:
'LAYCAN : Full quantity of Cargo is likely to be available http://www.judis.nic.in 15 around 20th March 2010 The last for lifting the cargo from both the ports before 31st March 2010.'
18. With regard to the first contention, as to whether the 15,000 USD per day is Liquidated Damages and as to whether it qualifies as Liquidated Damages within the meaning of Section 74 of the Contract Act, a perusal of Ex.C1, reveals that it is merely part of the Price Bid format and Vessel detention charges has been shown as 15,000 USD per day. This certainly, will not qualify as Liquidated Damages. However, this Court reminds itself that an application (OP) under Section 34 of A & C Act is not an appeal. It is mere a challenge to the impugned arbitral award. Therefore, it is not necessary to delve further into this aspect of the matter. Suffice to say that the view taken by AT is clearly both possible and plausible. Therefore, there is no ground for judicial intervention qua impugned award I and impugned award II, as far as this aspect of the matter is concerned.
19. With regard to the second ground that is being agitated by BHEL namely that 31.03.2010 is the cut off date, both learned counsel submitted that the dates were modified subsequently with regard to Bombay alone and date was changed from 31.03.2010 to 21.04.2010. Be that as it may, the question, which is being examined is whether these dates would be the cut off dates after which alone there can be a claim with regard to laycan. The issue http://www.judis.nic.in 16 is, if the Vessel idles or if the Vessel is detained, owing to which the carrier incurs various charges i.e., payment to the crew, fuel and expenses / charges under several other heads, whether the carrier will be entitled to this claim. In the considered view of this Court as long as the carrier is able to establish that the Vessel was idling owing to delay on the part of BHEL, the carrier will be entitled to make this claim and that is what has precisely happened in the instant OPs.
20. With regard senior OP, adverting to oral and documentary evidence, which were available before AT, learned counsel for carrier drew the attention of this Court to that part of deposition, which reads as follows:
'Q12. Please take Exhibit C16. Refer to that and tell us when was the notice of readiness issued?
A. It is on 25.03.2010. It was acknowledged by protecting agent of Steel authority of India Ltd., dated Nil.
Q13. In so far as the present transaction is concerned, what is the relationship between BHEL and SAIL?
A. BHEL is an exporter and SAIL is a supplier. Q14. Please see Exhibit C5 at page 31. Based on the entries on the same, please let us know when the Vessel was ready to load export cargo?
A. As per the statement of facts, the Notice of Readiness was accepted on 25.03.2010.
http://www.judis.nic.in 17 Q15. Please take page 32. Has the reason for waiting of the Vessel under the heading “Pre Berthing Delays”, from 25.03.2010 to 29.03.2010 been given as waiting for cargo documents?
A. Yes. But the witness adds that due to congestion in Vizhag Port as stated in Exhibit R2 SAIL authorities requested Vizhag Port Traffic Manager to berth Vessel which was waiting at Anchorage.
Q16. What is the date of the letter Exhibit R2?
A. It is 29.03.2010.
Q17. Therefore it is to be taken that before the letter could be issued on 29.03.2010, the Vessel was waiting. Is it not?
A. Yes, however as per the tender conditions Clause 16, BHEL shall not be responsible for berthing delays at load/ discharge port.
Q18. Please take Exhibit C4 starting from page 30. Can it be taken as per Ex.C4 that the Vessel was ready to load cargo from 25.03.2010 onwards?
A. Yes Q19.It is the duty of the Steel Authority India Ltd., to arrange for export document of the cargo?
A. Yes.'
21. To be noted, Ex.C16 is the notice of readiness, Ex.C5 is the Statement of Facts issued by Master of said Vessel and Ex.R2 is the letter from 'Steel Authority of India Limited'(SAIL).
http://www.judis.nic.in 18
22. In the light of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, AT has come to the conclusion that delay is on the part of BHEL and therefore, carrier is entitled to detention charges. Likewise, with regard to junior OP, my attention is drawn to that part of the deposition, which reads as follows:
'Q17. Please take Ex.C.19. Please tell me when was the notice of readiness given by the Master?
A. As per this document Ex.C.19, it is 21.04.2010 and it is not addressed to BHEL nor received by BHEL.
Q18. For the purpose of effecting an export as per the terms of the customs act should a document called shipping bill be filed?
A. Yes.
Q19. Please take Ex.C.7 at page 32. Based on the entries contained in the same, whether the Vessel was ready to load export cargo on 23.04.2010?
A. Yes, as per statement of facts. Witness adds:- This is common for all exportes.
Q20. Please note there are 2 entries, stating Vessel shifted to anchorage from 28.04.2010 to 04.05.2010. Do you know the reason why the Vessel was shifted to anchorage from berth?
A. I am not aware.
Q21. Please take page 33 onwards. At page 34 what is the reason given in the right hand column as against each date?
A. It is stated that waiting of export cargo at loading port (shipper BHEL). Witness adds:- This document is not authenticated as no seal is found there.
Q22. Please take page 36. Is there a seal on the document on behalf of the Master of Vessel as well as agents?
http://www.judis.nic.in 19 A. Yes. There is a seal in the last page.
Q23. At any point of time prior to these proceedings, have you objected to the contents of Ex.C.7 statement of facts?
A. I have to check and confirm.
Q24. Have you filed any document in these proceedings objecting to the contents of Ex.C.7 statement of facts.
A. No. Q25. For this shipment, when did you file the shipping bill?
A. I have to check and confirm.
Q32. Please take Ex.C.20, which is a letter dated 26.04.2010 issued by the claimant to Mumbai Port trust. Is it correct to state that even as on 26.04.2010 the cargo was not available at Mumbai Port?
The learned counsel for the Respondent BHEL objects this question as BHEL is not a party to this letter.
A. Witness answers, he does not know.'
23. As far as the aforesaid extract in junior OP is concerned, this Court is informed that Ex.C19 is the Notice of Readiness, Ex.C7 is the Statement of Facts given by the Master of said Vessel and Ex.C20 is the letter given by the carrier to the Mumbai Port. Therefore, there was adequate oral and documentary evidence before AT to arrive at the conclusions it did on merits.
24. Be that as it may, learned counsel for BHEL drew my attention http://www.judis.nic.in 20 to issue No.6 in impugned award I, which reads as follows:
'6) Whether the Claimant is entitled to claim the detention charges prior to 31.03.2010, when the loading of the cargo commenced on 30.03.2010 itself?'
25. To be noted, issues in impugned award I and impugned award II have already been extracted supra. Referring to the manner in which issue No.6 has been answered, learned counsel for BHEL submitted that it is perversity.
26. Specific reference was drawn to IX-F-e of the impugned award in this regard, which reads as follows:
'IX-F-e) While deciding the issue No.2 above, this Tribunal, after going through the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that it is the Respondent who caused the delay in handling over the cargo as per the work order dated 20-03-2010. when the Vessel was very much available on 25-03-2010 as per Ex.C5, the Statement of Facts and the very same exhibit refers to the delay on account of cargo documents, the detention charges will be levied for the period from 25-03- 2010 to 30-03-2010, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the Claimant. Further, the notice of readiness would also make it very clear that the Vessel arrived at Visakhapatnam on 25-03-2010 and is in every respect ready to load the steel cargo in accordance with the terms and conditions. Hence, the Claimant is entitled to claim detention charges prior to 31-03-2010, as per http://www.judis.nic.in 21 the tender documents dated 02-03-2010 and the work order dated 30-03-2010.'
27. To noted, issue No.2 reads as follows:
'2) Whether the Respondent caused delay in handling over the cargo as per the work order dated 20.03.2010?'
28. To my mind, this cannot qualify as perversity or irrationality for the reasons which shall be set out infra.
29. Perversity or irrationality, which has been held to be the one of the facets of public policy of India, has to be tested on the touchstone of time honoured wednesbury test of reasonableness using the same as a litmus test. This has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223: (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA). Time honoured Wednesbury test of reasonableness is to the effect that the conclusion arrived at by AT is so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have arrived at such a conclusion on the basis of materials placed before it.
30. In the instant cases in the considered opinion of this Court, impugned award I and impugned award II, pass the muster of wednesbury test of reasonableness, head and shoulder above any spec of doubt as views of AT are clearly not only possible, but also plausible views. This Court also reminds http://www.judis.nic.in 22 itself that while examining an application (OP) under Section 34 of A & C Act, the same is a summary procedure as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fiza Developers & Inter – Trade (P) Ltd. Vs. AMCI (India) (P) Ltd. reported in (2009) 17 SCC 796. This Fiza developers principle has been subsequently reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Emkay Global Financial Services Limited Vs. Girdhar Sondhi reported in (2018) 9 SCC 49, it has been held that Fiza Developers principle is a step in right direction for expeditious disposal of proceedings under Section 34 of A & C Act.
31. In the instant cases, as mentioned supra, impugned award I and impugned award II are dated 06.10.216. They are nearly 2 ½ years old now.
32. The commencement of the arbitral proceedings was three years prior to that. In other words, the arbitral proceedings have already consumed more than half a decade. In any event, this is mentioned only for the limited purpose of making it clear that this Court has borne in mind the Fiza Developers principle that testing an impugnd award under Section 34 A & C Act is strictly within the contours and confines of Section 34 of A & C Act and it should be done by perambulating within the contours and confines of Section 34 of A & C Act. It has also been borne in mind that while doing so, Section 34 of A & C Act is clearly a summary procedure.
http://www.judis.nic.in 23
33. Besides this, the aforesaid Fiza Developers principle reiterated in Emkay Global, also stems from one of the salutary principles and sublime philosophies underlying 'Alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanism' ('ADR Mechanism' for brevity) and that salutary principle and sublime philosophy is 'minimum judicial intervention', which can also be described as one of the pillars of ADR mechanism. Bearing all this in mind, this Court has no hesitation whatsoever in coming to the conclusion that impugned award I and impugned award II do not warrant judicial intervention in the instant cases i.e., senior and junior OPs.
34. This leads to the decision.
35. DECISION:
Owing to all that have been set out supra, both senior and junior OPs are dismissed. Considering the nature of the matter and the trajectory of the hearing, both parties are left to bear their respective costs.
14.03.2019 Index: Yes/No gpa/mp M.SUNDAR.J., gpa/mp http://www.judis.nic.in 24 O.P.Nos.146 & 147 of 2017 14.03.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in