Madras High Court
M/S.Praj Industries Limited vs M/S.Veerapandi Common Effluent ... on 30 October, 2024
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 01.08.2024
Pronounced on 30.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
Arb.O.P (Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022
M/s.Praj Industries Limited
represented by its authorized Signatory,
Venugopalan Nair ... Petitioner in
Arb.O.P(Com.Div.)No.534 of 2022
and
... Respondent in
Arb.O.P(Com.Div.) No.634 of 2022
Versus
M/s.Veerapandi Common Effluent Treatment Plant Limited,
No.548/1, Karuppa Gounden Palayam,
Cotton Market Post,
Tirupur-641 604. ... Petitioner in
Arb.O.P(Com.Div.) No.634 of 2023
and
... Respondent in
Arb.O.P(Com.Div.) No.534 of 2023
Prayer in Arb.O.P(Com.Div.)No.534 of 2022:
Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 34(2) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the Arbitral
Page No.1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022
Award dated 05.04.2022 partly passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal.
Prayer in Arb.O.P(Com.Div.) No.634 of 2022:
Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 34(2) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to set aside the Arbitral
Award, dated 05.04.2022 passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal.
For Petitioner in
Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.534 of 2022
and ... Mr.Srinath Sridevan,
Respondent in Senior Counsel for
Arb.O.P(Com.Div.) No.634 of 2022 M/s.Ramya Subramaniam
For Petitioner in
Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.634 of 2022
and ... Mr.R.Vidhya Shankar
Respondent in
Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.534 of 2023
****
COMMON ORDER
These Arbitration Original Petitions arise out of the same Arbitral Award dated 05.04.2022 passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal.
2. The petitioner in Arb.O.P.No.534 of 2022 has challenged the Page No.2/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022 findings of the Tribunal in respect of rejection of their claim Nos.2, 3, 4 and their counter claim, while the petitioner in Arb O.P.No.634 of 2022 has challenged the entire Award.
3. For the sake of convenience, the claimant, M/s.Veerapandi Common Effluent Treatment Plant Pvt.Ltd, who is the petitioner in Arb.O.P.No.634 of 2022 will be hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner' while the petitioner in Arb O.P.No.534 of 2022, viz., M/s.Praj Industries Limited, will be hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent'.
4. The brief facts, which led to the filing of the present petitions, are as follows:
4.1 The petitioner approached the Arbitral Tribunal, by way of a claim petition, seeking to pass an award for a sum of Rs.29,10,00,000/-
payable by the respondent. The brief facts of the claim petition, are as follows:
4.2. The petitioner is the Limited Company, formed to meet the requirements of dying units at Tirupur, who are the Members / Shareholders Page No.3/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022 of the petitioner company, to comply with the statutory guidelines of the Government of Tamil Nadu to meet the Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD). The petitioner Company invited tenders in October, 2012 for the works of installing, commissioning and operational maintenance of mechanical evaporator.
5. The Respondent Company approached the petitioner Company and assured that they are having the requisite expertise, experience, design, engineering, project management, R&D etc., and they can provide the turn key solution to the petitioner in achieving Zero Liquid Discharge. The petitioner Company relied upon the representation made by the Respondent herein, entered into an Agreement on 28.03.2013 for design, engineering, sale, supply, erection, and commissioning of mechanical evaporator plant.
The entire work was to be completed within eight months and timely completion is one of the key criteria of the contract. The total value of the work was fixed Rs.11,50,00,000/- and the petitioner Company has paid 60% of the amount i.e., 7.31 crores in full as per the terms of the Agreement. Consequently, the Respondent Company executed a corporate guarantee on Page No.4/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022 19.04.2013 giving guarantee for performance of their applications under the Agreement.
6. According to the petitioner, right from the beginning, the respondent committed inordinate delay and installed machines at a belated stage. Though the machines have been installed and purportedly attempted to commission, there was negligible Glauber's Salt recovery. The entire system was getting chocked within 15 minutes of the operation of the common effluent treatment plant during trial runs. Even though the Respondent Company promised to rectify all the defects, they failed not do so. Ultimately, they attempted making certain modifications in the design but yet recovery Glauber salt was not satisfactory. The petitioner addressed repeated letters to the Respondent including the mail dated 31.10.2014 to which the Respondent replied on 01.11.2014 assuring that performance runs would be conducted at the earliest after completing necessary pre- commissioning works. But the commissioning was not completed and this resulted in a several warnings from the Department of Handloms and Textiles and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board for closure of the Page No.5/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022 petitioner concern for not achieving ZLD even after sanction and release of Interest Free loan by the Tamil Nadu Government..
7. The petitioner pointed out various defects in the commissioning of the plants by the mail dated 14.11.2014. The petitioner also conveyed to the Respondent that there was a serious risk of closure by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board since ZLD was not achieved for full capacity. To get over the said problem, the Respondent suggested in their email dated 20.11.2014 that recovery of Mixed Salts can be attempted in the Chiller Section instead of Glauber Salt, just so that Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board may be pacified.
8. At the joint meeting held on 25.11.2014 between the parties, the Respondent accepted that the plant was a failure, there was no salt recovery and the Respondent would take steps for rectification so as to achieve at least 40% within a month, after which, the plant can run with 100% capacity by end of January 2015. Even after such undertaking also, the Respondent did not take any steps for the successful completion of the project. The Page No.6/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022 petitioner sent a mail dated 03.12.2014 requesting the Respondent to furnish the schedule of plan of action to which the Respondent by their mail dated 11.12.2014 agreed to complete modifications and take up the plant run and further promised that if the plant does not run satisfactorily despite modifications and alterations, options may be discussed. In the meeting held on 09.01.2015, the Respondent accepted that the plant was in the trial run stage was upto 20% capacity/flow only and attempts were being made to run it at least 40% of its capacity. Till December 2015, as the Respondent persistently defaulting in completing the commissioning, the petitioner finally requested the Respondent to submit a comprehensive plan of action as to how they are intend to reach 100% performance. During the discussion held on 05.03.2015 the Respondent agreed that the plant was working only to 25% of the design capacity. Thereafter, the Respondent committed that by17.04.2015 the full plant will be in operation for full capacity. However, the Respondent did not take any steps to fulfill the undertaking except again repeatedly asking for extension.
9. According to the petitioner, they had made all the payments in Page No.7/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022 terms of the Agreement. The plant installed by the Respondent is working upto a maximum of 15% capacity only. The petitioner herein has forced to use another evaporator from local supplier and this only helped the petitioner to meet further 25% capacity. Consequently, the petitioner's member units are running only with maximum of 40% of their individual capacity utilization resulting in continuous loss. The petitioner invested crores of rupees with the Respondent only on the basis of promise that the Respondent has the expertise assistance to fulfill the requirement of the petitioner for achieving ZLD. However, the Respondent has abandoned the project. Consequently, the petitioner had sustained heavy loss, i.e. to the tune of Rs.29,10,00,000/-.
10. Consequently, the petitioner terminated the contract of the Respondent by letter dated 19.10.2015. The petitioner also intimated the Respondent that PMA M/s. Enkem Engineers, Chennai agreed to inspect and submit the report on the performance of the plant on 03.11.2015 to 05.11.2015 and requested the Respondent to send their representative. Ultimately, the said M/s. Emkem Engineers Private Limited, Chennai Page No.8/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022 submitted a report on the performance during 17.11.2015 to 20.11.2015 in which they categorically mentioned the failure of the project. Based on the said report, the petitioner quantified the loss suffer by the dying units and garment sector at a sum of Rs.29,10,000/- and sent a notice dated 27.06.2015 calling upon the Respondent to pay the damages as mentioned above and as the respondent failed to pay the same, the petitioner invoked arbitration Clause 7 of the Agreement dated 28.03.2013 and filed the claim petition before the learned Arbitral Tribunal.
11. The respondent company, resisting the claim petition, filed a defence statement along with counter claim, wherein, at the outset, it is denied denied that the entire work was to be completed within 8 months as the timely completion was dependent on timely fulfilment of petitioner 's several obligations as per the terms of the contract, mainly among others supply of steam, completion of civil works and other utilities. The payments made to the respondent was in tranches after an inordinate delay. The balance price of the contract is still due.
Page No.9/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022
12. It is further denied that there is negligible Glauber Salt recovery. All the equipment were supplied by the respondent on the basis of the equipment list provided by the petitioner in the tender.
13. On several occasion, the respondent brought to the notice of the petitioner about process of modifications, addition of specific equipment, taking into consideration the non-compatibility and non-suitability of the petitioner given list of equipment for achieving ZLD and producing Glauber Salt. The choking of the system was entirely due to the scheme of design basis given by the petitioner in the tender and therefore the respondent during the execution of the works and subsequent installation of the equipment was calling upon the petitioner to do design modifications and add additional equipment. There were no defects at all. On the contrary the system and equipment was inadequate, for which, the respondent suggested that the petitioner should carry out necessary design basis modifications including the addition of equipment and the petitioner also concurred with this.
Page No.10/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022
14. The respondent had informed the petitioner that it is executing two other projects for ZLD and producing Glauber salt and it is confident of doing it successfully for petitioner 's project also if the petitioner accepts for process modifications and addition of specific equipment as suggested by the Respondent. The respondent denied that they attempted making certain modifications in design but nothing of alleged modifications resulted in unsatisfactory performance in recovery of Glauber salt and stated that it is because of the petitioner not allowing the respondent to make modifications and that the petitioner prematurely terminated the contract.
15. It is further stated that the petitioner having concurred that the design basis of the plaint given by the petitioner in tender is not suitable and compatible, for achieving ZLD, allowed the respondent to carry out necessary experiments during execution of the project in order to enable the respondent to suggest the suitable modifications and if required addition of any equipment. The respondent was continuously doing analysis of the problems faced by the equipment and its design suggested by the petitioner in the tender and was doing a root cause analysis. According to the Page No.11/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022 respondent, in course of time through discussions and several meetings that took place between the Respondent's technical team, the petitioner and its consultant, the petitioner realized that the design basis for which the tender was floated was inadequate in terms of capacity and process time and it required modifications and additions of certain equipment so that the system is capable of recovering salts and solids to achieve ZLD. Therefore, the respondent kept on suggesting modifications by way of installing new equipment so that the plant can achieve ZLD and recover Glauber salt of desired quantity.
16. It is further stated that the tender document and the agreement do not contemplate an obligation on their part to suggest modifications and the heads of account and the basis of calculations are premature, wrongful and exaggerated. Therefore it cannot be claimed either in equity/law/ contract or otherwise. The petitioner had not suffered any loss. The calculations are in the nature of penalty. There is no genuine pre-estimate of Liquidated Damages. The termination of contract on 19.10.2015 is illegal. The performance run and report relied upon by the petitioner cannot be accepted. Page No.12/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022 The petitioner has no legal right to reserve any claim to be agitated later on. The plant in question consists of three parts. The first part being Shell and Tube based evaporation System for concentration of the effluent. For this purpose the required steam as specified in the Agreement was to be supplied by the petitioner in order to achieve the concentration. According to the respondent even as on today the evaporation which is required and concentration of effluent which is expected in this equipment is being carried on even as on today and the same is working as per specifications. Glauber Salt and thereafter the residue after recovery of Glauber Salt is inducted into Auxiliary Evaporator and used for further concentration of effluent and ZLD is achieved. It is stated that the equipment for recovery of Glauber salt is a bought out item as per the tender conditions. Even at the time of entering into contract, the respondent informed the petitioner that the above referred item is a bought out item and the same requires modification for recovery of require quantity of Glauber salt and accordingly a clause was incorporated in the Agreement that modifications as may be required, can be made in the equipment. Therefore, according to the respondent, after achievement of both the requirements, they discharged Page No.13/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022 their obligations.
17. It is stated that n the date of termination of the contract, the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.4,45,21,294/- being the balance price for all the supplies completed. This sum carries interest at 15% per annum. Therefore, the respondent raised a counter claim for a sum of Rs.6,18,66,302/- including the balance due with interest.
18. While pending the arbitral proceedings, the petitioner also filed an amended claim statement on 09.08,2018, wherein, while reiterating the averments made in the claim statement, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.57,50,000/- as Liquidated Damages, refund of the amount paid by the petitioner to the respondent and expenses incurred to rectify the breach and to produce ZLD. Rs.7,33,17,179 is the amount paid under the contract to the respondent and a sum of Rs.2,10,00,000/- in all totalling to Rs.9,43,17,179/- and lastly Rs. 3,88,80,00,000/- as production loss for the period from December 2013 to March 2018 until filing of the claim. The value of the Page No.14/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022 claim is totalled to Rs. 131,98,67,179/-.
19. Resisting the amended claim statement filed by the petitioner, the respondent also filed a additional defence statement, wherein, while denying the averments made in the additional claim statement, it is stated that all the amended claims have been abandoned and waived by the petitioner and therefore, the entire amended claim is liable to be rejected as devoid of merits and barred by limitation.
20. On consideration of the claim and counter claim statements and the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Arbitral Tribunal, vide its award dated 05.04.2022, dismissed both claim petition and counter claim petition filed by the parties.
21. Challenging the same, both the parties have come forward with the present Original Petition.
Page No.15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022
22. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior counsel for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner, who is the claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal, would submit that in the present case, the petitioner has launched a claim for Rs.29,10,00,000/- towards liquidated damages for non- recovery of Glauber Salt as per Clause 10.3 of the Agreement dated 28.03.2013. The said claim was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that there were no pleadings at all and no evidence was produced by the petitioner to substantiate the same. However, the learned counsel would submit that the pleadings in respect of the claim were made in para 9(g) of the claim statement and also the calculations were given for the claim of a sum of Rs.29,10,00,000/-. He would also submit that para 7.4 of the Additional Claim Statement also talks about the basis of the forumla under which, based on the performance, the petitioner is entitled for damages towards non-recovery of Glauber salt. Clause 3 of the Contract pertains to the performance guarantee, guaranteeing that recovery of Glauber salt for different ranges of feed TDS will be as per Annexure V Mass Balance, but Page No.16/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022 the same was not considered by the Tribunal. He pointed out that the Tribunal also ignored the Expert's Report of the PMA which was marked as Ex.C60-C.V.3, which is crucial evidence to assess the shortfall in recovery of Glauber salt. The respondent, in fact, guaranteed Glauber salt recovery should be 5 tonns/hour or 120 tons per day, but there is a shortfall of 97 tonns per day. However, without considering all these aspects and particularly, the documents produced by the claimant/petitioner, the Tribunal came to a conclusion as if no document was produced to substantiate the claim, by the petitioner and rejected the said claim. Hence, the learned would submit that there is patent illegality committed by the Tribunal on this aspect while rejecting the claim No.1. Therefore, the award in respect of claim No.1 is liable to be set aside.
24. As regards claim Nos.2, 3 and 4 are concerned, the same are pertaining to the additional claims and the Tribunal had rejected the same on the ground that they were barred by limitation. The learned counsel would point out that the learned Arbitral Tribunal arrived at the date of breach as 30.08.2015, as such, the cause of action arose on 01.09.2015, Page No.17/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022 thereby, the claimant had time until 29.08.2018 for making claims and the amended claim application was filed on 25.08.2018 as could be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application filed for additional claims, which was sworn to by the Chairman on 09.08.2018. However, these additional claims were rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 13.10.2018 and the Tribunal has taken into consideration that the date of ordering the additional claims as the date for making the additional claims and thereby, held that they were barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the date on which, the additional claims were actually made before the Tribunal should be taken into consideration and not the date of rejecting them by the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the amendment application for additional claims was filed on 25.08.2018 and as such, these additional claims cannot be held as barred by Limitation. This vital aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal and even the judgment in “State of Goa versus Praveen Enterprises” reported in (2012) 12 SCC 581 was wrongly interpreted by the Tribunal while deciding the additional claims.
Page No.18/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022
25. The learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal held that claimant/petitioner is entitled to Rs.7.33,17,179/- towards additional claim No.3 along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of breach till the date of actual payment, however, rejected the additional claims as time barred, which shows non-application of mind on the part of the Tribunal and as such, the award passed by the lelarned Tribunal suffers from patent illegality and also it is opposed to public policy of India and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
26. Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that on the aspect of limitation, no interpretation is required as the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claims made by the petitioner. As far as the claim in respect non-recovery of Glauber salt is concerned, he would submit that the Tribunal has held that no performance trial run was conducted and rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to claim damages towards non-recovery of Glauber salt. As regards the counter claim is concerned, the learned counsel would submit that towards balance price, the respondent had incurred Rs.4,45,21,291/- and Page No.19/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022 hence, they are entitled to the same, but the Tribunal has not considered in proper perspective and erroneously rejected, which is liable to be set aside. He would submit that as regards the rejection of the claims made by the petitioner, no interference is required by this Court, however, as regards the rejection of the counter claim is concerned, he would submit that the respondent is entitled to Rs.4,45,21,291/- and hence, to this extent, the award has to be set aside.
27. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the entire materials placed on record, it reveals that both parties have filed Original Petitions since the Tribunal has rejected claims made by the petitioner as well as the counter claim made by the respondent. As far as the claim No.1 is concerned, it is pertaining to the liquidated damages towards non-recovery of Glauber salt to the extent of Rs.29,10,00,000/-. The Tribunal has rejected this claim on the ground that there was no pleading and documentary evidence produced by the petitioner and also performance run has not been conducted, but except mechanical run, based on which, recovery of Glauber salt could not be determined. The Tribunal Page No.20/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022 was of the view that after mechanical trial run, there was no Glauber salt recovery, however, on a perusal of the terms and conditions as referred to by the petitioner, it is clear that the respondent is supposed to recover Glauber salt at each and every stage of mechanical trial run. To substantiate this, the claimant/petitioner has filed various documents and also adduced evidence. However, the Tribunal has completely failed to deal with those vital documents and evidence, but only rejected on the ground that during mechanical run, no Glauber salt recovery will be available but during the performance run alone, there will be recovery of Glauber salt. This finding of the Tribunal appears to be without considering the documentary evidence. This Court finds that there is substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and for this reason, this Court is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in respect of Claim No.1 is liable to be set aside.
28. As regards claim Nos.2, 3 and 4 are concerned, the same have been been rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that they are barred by limitation. The petitioner has made these claims by way of amendment Page No.21/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022 application as additional claims. While considering the claim No.3, the Tribunal on merits, has reached at a conclusion that the claimant/petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.7,33,17,179/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of breach till the date of actual payment, however rejected the other additional claims on the ground that these claims are barred by limitation. It is pertinent to note that even the Tribunal held that the respondent committed the breach of contract on 31.08.2015 and therefore, any claim should have been made on or before 31.08.2018. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed amendment application seeking to add additional claims on 25.08.2024. The Tribunal, vide order dated 13.10.2018, allowed the amendment application. As such, the Tribunal has taken into consideration that the date of ordering the additional claims as the date for making the additional claims, i.e. 13.10.2018 and thereby, held that they were barred by limitation. This view of the Tribunal is contrary to law and incorrect. Once a claim statement is filed before the Tribunal on a particular day and the same is taken on file on the same day, that would be the date to be considered as the date of the claim made. In the event of allowing the application on later date, it has to be considered that the date of claim is on Page No.22/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022 the date of filing the application before the Tribunal and not the date of passing the order. In the present case, admittedly, the additional claims were filed by way of amendment application on 25.08.2018 by the petitioner and though the Tribunal has ordered the application on 31.10.2018, the claims have to be given effect to from the date of filing, i.e. on 25.08.20218 only. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the additional claims made by the claimant/petitioner are well within the time and the Tribunal has committed patent illegality in rejecting these claims as barred by limitation. Further, the judgment in “State of Goa versus Praveen Enterprises” reported in (2012) 12 SCC 581 was wrongly interpreted by the Tribunal that the date of amendment by which the claim was introduced will become the relevant date for determining the limitation and as such, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the date of passing the order allowing the amendment application, i.e. 13.10.2018 as the date of additional claims taken on file and thereby, erroneously rejected the additional claims as barred by limitation and hence, this Court is of the view that the same is liable to be set aside. It is also pertinent to note that even while rejecting the counter claim, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there was a Page No.23/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022 breach of contract occurred. When such being the case, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has committed patent illegality and therefore, the entire award is liable to be set aside.
29. As regards the counter claim is concerned, it pertains to a sum of Rs.4,45,21,291/- made by the respondent towards balance price for the supply of equipment as per the contract and the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that there was a breach occurred at the instance of the respondent and therefore, rejected the counter claim. However, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the various documents and evidence placed on record by the respondent to establish that the petitioner has terminated the contract prematurely contrary to the terms of the contract. Therefore, on this ground, the award of the Tribunal as regards the rejection of counter claim, is liable to be set aside.
30. In the light of the above discussion, both the petitions filed by the petitioner as well by the respondent are allowed and the entire award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, dated 05.04.2022 is set aside. Page No.24/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022
31. Accordingly, both the Arbitration Original Petitions filed by the parties are allowed. No costs.
32. However, it is made clear that since the entire award is set aside by this Court, for the purpose of any future course of action proposed to be initiated (if any) by the respective parties, by virtue of Section 43(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the period, i.e. from the date of commencement of arbitral proceedings till the date of this order, shall be excluded in computing the time prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963.
suk 30.10.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Page No.25/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) Nos.534 and 634 of 2022
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
suk
Pre delivery Common Order in
Arb.O.P (Com.Div.) Nos.534
and 634 of 2022
30.10.2024
Page No.26/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis