Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the controversy are as under:-

4.1. BHEL had entered into a contract for setting up a Thermal Power Plant in Syria on a turnkey basis. BHEL in turn has placed purchase order dated 26.03.2013 for supply of DM Plant (subject matter of W.P. (C) 10901/2016) and purchase order dated 20.12.2016 for supply of Condensate Polishing System and other items (subject matter of W.P. (C) 10886/2016), on DRIPLEX.
4.2. BHEL's claims that on 11.06.2012, it was forced to suspend all operations relating to the thermal plant in question, including exports to Syria from India, due to Civil unrest and the advisory issued by the Indian Embassy at Damascus. Accordingly, BHEL informed all the concerned suppliers, including DRIPLEX, that the project had been put on hold.

According to BHEL, it is, thus, not required to make payments under the agreements (purchase orders). DRIPLEX claims to the contrary; according to DRIPLEX, it is entitled to the consideration payable for supply of DM Plant and Condensate Polishing Unit delivered to BHEL.

4.3. Since BHEL declined to pay the consideration for the supplies, on June 2015, DRIPLEX filed separate applications under Section 18 of the Act, with MSEFC, enclosing therewith a statement of their claims in respect of the respective purchase orders. In respect of the purchase order dated 26.03.2013, DRIPLEX claimed a sum of `2,22,00,000/- along with interest and, in respect of the purchase order dated 20.12.2011, DRIPLEX claimed a sum for `6,08,59,300/- along with interest.

4.4. Pursuant to the above applications, MSEFC issued a notice to BHEL on 02.11.2015 and called upon BHEL to appear before MSEFC on 23.11.2015. BHEL was also called upon to file a reply to the claims filed by DRIPLEX. In response to the aforesaid notices, BHEL filed its replies to the respective claims preferred by DRIPLEX, inter alia, disputing the liability to pay the amount claimed on account of force majure conditions. BHEL claimed that the force majeure clause as contained in the Special Conditions of Contract was applicable and, thus, BHEL was not obliged to make any payments to DRIPLEX. DRIPLEX filed rejoinders countering the contentions advanced by BHEL.

7. Mr Vikram Nandrajog, learned counsel appearing for DRIPLEX supported the contentions advanced on behalf of MSEFC. He further contended that there was a clear conflict between the provisions of Section 18(3) of the Act and the arbitration agreement between BHEL and DRIPLEX (Clause 30 of the GCC) and, therefore, the provisions of the Act would necessarily prevail. He relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in BHEL v. State of U.P. and Others : W.P. (C) 11535/2014 decided on 24.02.2014; the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in The Chief Administrator Officer, COFMOW v. MSEFC of Haryana & Ors.: CWP 277/2015 decided on 09.01.2015; the decision of the Calcutta High Court in NPCC Limited and another v. West Bengal State MSEFC & Ors.: GA No. 304/2017 W.P. 294/2016 decided on 16.02.2017; and the decision of a coordinate bench of this Court in GE T & D India Ltd. v. Reliable Engineering Projects and Marketing : OMP (Comm.) No. 76/2016 decided on 15.02.2017, in support of his aforesaid contention. He also referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd & Anr. v. N.K. Modi : (1996) 6 SCC 385 and National Seeds Corporation Ltd v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. :