Delhi High Court
S.S. Jain & Co. vs Union Of India on 30 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997VAD(DELHI)75, 1997(2)ARBLR551(DELHI), 71(1998)DLT614
JUDGMENT Vijender Jain, J.
(1) Award was given by the Arbitrator, Mr.C.Achuthan, Additional Legal Officer to Government of India in disputes between the petitioners and the respondents on 23.9.1991. Petitioners have moved application under Section 14(2) read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act to make the award rule of the Court. Respondents filed its objection to the same.
(2) MS.MONA Aneja, who is appearing for Mr. S.S. Sabharwal, Counsel for respondents, has argued that the Arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings on the ground that the Arbitrator ignored the fact that the claimant was registered with the Sale Tax Authority only on 22.2.1989. She has further contended that Arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings while rejecting the claim of the respondents that the respondents are entitled to receive the amount on account of Clause-14 of the Schedule (ii) of the Tender Enquiry attached with the claimant's tender wherein it was specifically mentioned that the payment will be deemed to be complete on the date when the entire sale value, compensation charges applicable, Sales Tax/ITC and other necessary documents complete in all respects are received.
(3) On the other hand, Ms. Purnima Bhat, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the Arbitrator has neither committed an error apparent on the face of the record nor has misconducted the proceedings. She has further contended that the Arbitrator has discussed in detail the objection of the respondent and has returned a well-reasoned finding and this Court not being a Court of appeal will not reverse that finding unless Court comes to the conclusion that award is manifestly perverse or illegal. What this Court has to examine is whether the Arbitrator has gone beyond the agreement while allowing or disallowing the claim of the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has further prayed that the petitioners may be allowed pendente lite interest from the date of the award till realisation as Arbitrator having come to the conclusion that respondent was not entitled for the payment of the amount, out to have granted interest. In support other contentions, she has cited .
(4) I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties at length. In the award. Arbitrator has given a specific finding that the sale value and sales tax were two different items and compensation could only be levied for delayed value of sales value and not for the sales tax. There is a definite finding given by the Arbitrator that in the instant case the respondents have levied compensation on the sales tax which is not tenable in terms of the contract. Arbitrator has held the levy to be bad and invalid. Arbitrator has further observed in the award that from the perusal of the documents filed by the claimant that they have filed ST-8 form which clearly indicated that the claimants were not required to pay sales tax on the purchase of the contracted stores under reference, more so having subsequently filed ST-1 form. Arbitrator further held that there is nothing on record to show that claimants had any time thereafter paid the sales tax. In view of the findings of the Arbitrator that the respondents have themselves admitted in their pleadings that they had accepted ST-I form in lieu of the sales tax. Arbitrator held that claim of compensation of delayed payment of sales tax was not sustainable when the sales tax itself was not required to be paid. Where is the question for payment of compensation for the delayed payments.
(5) I do not see any force in the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. Objections of the respondents are dismissed. As the petitioners have not filed objection regarding not awarding pendente lite interest, the prayer of the petitioner regarding award of pendente lite interest to the petitioner is also rejected.
Ia stand disposed of.
Suit No. 378-A/1992 Award is made rule of the Court. If the respondents do not make the payment under the award within a period of four months, petitioners-claimant shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of the award till its realisation.