Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

24. This court by relying on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in COMAP No.101/2021 dated 22.12.2021 has similarly observed by relying on citations of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kanchan Udyog Limited Vs. United Spirits Limited (2017) 8 SCC 237, in para No.48 to 53, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has observed as follows:

"48. CHITTY ON CONTRACTS in 28th Edition while dealing with nominal damages in para 27-0007 has opined as under:
Nominal damages. Wherever the defendant is liable for a breach of contract, the claimant is in general entitled to nominal damages although no actual damage is proved, the violation of a right at common law will usually entitle the claimant to nominal damages without proof of special damage. Normally, this situation arises when the defendant's breach of contract has in fact caused no loss to the claimant, but it may also arise when the claimant, although he has suffered loss, fails to prove any loss flowing from the breach of contract, or fails to prove the actual amount of his loss. A regular use of nominal damages, however, is to establish the infringement of the claimant's right, and sometimes the award of nominal damages is "a mere peg on which to hang costs."

49. Thus, nominal damages are granted where a legal right of plaintiff is found to be infringed and there is no proof of actual loss. In such a case, a notional amount may be awarded as damages to plaintiff. The arbitral tribunal by majority while dealing with the aforesaid claim of the respondent in para 4.2.21 has held as under: In the absence of critical evidence forthcoming from both the parties, we are constrained to award nominal damages in favour of the claimant for loss of business between March 2018 and August 2020.

52. The figure of Rs.16,04,41,281/- awarded under the head of nominal damages by taking into account of 10% annual sales growth for which no evidence is on record seems to actual damages and not notional damages. The award of 38.5% of the claim, as nominal damages is based on no evidence. Therefore, the award to the aforesaid extent suffers from patent illegality under Section 34(2-A) of the Act.

(XIII) AWARD OF COSTS OF THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL

53. The majority award has awarded a sum of Rs.2,03,71,475/-. The respondent in the written statement made a claim of Rs.1,33,67,000/- incurred towards professional fee and legal expenses. However, no evidence was adduced with regard to the same. In the written submissions, the respondent had stated that invoices and bills pertaining to the claim for costs from part of confidential record and that it would submit the same if directed by the tribunal. However, the tribunal did not issue any direction to the respondent. The respondent claimed actual costs without any evidence and the tribunal proceeded to award the claim of Rs.2,03,71,475/- without any evidence. The finding in this regard is based on no evidence and suffers from patent illegality under Section 34(2-A) of the Act".