Delhi High Court
Union Of India Through Ministry Of ... vs Kalimata Ispat India (P) Ltd. on 21 May, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 179/2012
% 21st May, 2014
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF RAILWAY ......Appellant
Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh and Ms. Sampa
Sengupta Ray, Advocates.
VERSUS
KALIMATA ISPAT INDIA (P) LTD. ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
Review Application No. 255/2014 & C.M.No. 8930/2014 (condonation of delay)
1. On 20.5.2014, the following order was passed:-
1. Counsel for the review petitioner is not well.
At request, adjourned to 21st May, 2014 making it clear that no adjournment shall be granted on the next date.
2. I may prima facie state that the review application is not maintainable because in one application, there cannot be two reliefs which are contradictory to each other i.e for treating the judgment as an exparte judgment and for setting aside the same on the ground that it is an exparte judgment and the second relief that the judgment should be taken as final but review should be granted on merits.
FAO 179/2012 Page 1 of 4
2. Counsel for the review petitioner/appellant states that the petition be treated as a review petition and be decided accordingly. Taking the statement on record, the application/petition is treated as a review petition. Counsel for the review petitioner/appellant is heard.
3. This review petition is filed against the judgment passed by this Court on 3.2.2014. By the judgment dated 3.2.2014, the appeal filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment of the court below dated 17.12.2011 dismissing the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed.
4. No doubt, the impugned judgment may not be illuminating, however, it is for that reason while passing the judgment on 3.2.2014 this Court reproduced the relevant paras of the Award.
5. The disputes in the present case pertained to the claim made by the respondent against the appellant of a sum of Rs.2.74/- for each ERC Mark-III which was supplied to the appellant. Indubitably, as per the contractual clause 7.3, a fixed amount of Rs.2.74/- for each ERC Mark-III supplied to the appellant, the respondent/claimant and only if there was a variation then the higher differential amount would be paid to the appellant. The claim petition filed by the respondent was only for a sum of Rs.2.74 and FAO 179/2012 Page 2 of 4 there was no counter-claim by the appellant that even if the claimant/respondent has received a higher amount than Rs.2.74 on account of MODVAT and which amount was therefore sought as a counter-claim by the appellant. Therefore, before the arbitrator the only issue was of enforcement of Clause 7.3 as per which the respondent/claimant had to get an amount of Rs.2.74 for each ERC Mark-III supplied to the appellant and which was a fixed amount in favour of the respondent/claimant.
6. As already stated above, there is no counter-claim of the appellant herein in the arbitration proceedings and therefore, the only claim which is decided by the arbitrator was for a sum of Rs.2.74 for each ERC Mark-III received by the appellant, and which was payable to the respondent herein in terms of Clause 7.3.
7. There is no error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, this review petition is dismissed. I may state that in fact the entire appeal was argued on merits on behalf of the appellant although the appellant did not appear when the appeal was disposed of on 3.2.2012. I have allowed the appellant to re-argue the appeal on merits only to ensure FAO 179/2012 Page 3 of 4 that there is no error in the impugned judgment, though really the review petition was ex facie not maintainable.
8. Dismissed.
MAY 21, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
FAO 179/2012 Page 4 of 4