Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Unauthorized person has lodged the claim The G.M(B) is the Authorized person on behalf of the Chairman Cum Managing Director TNCSC Ltd., Chennai. A. These proceedings are illegal as Arbitrator has no jurisdiction The application given u/s 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 already has been dismissed on 20.02.08 C. There is no intimation of the Rejection as per terms and therefore the claim of the claimant is not sustainable. The TNCSC Ltd., CMD RPAD Letter B53/76845/2005 dt: 15.09.2005, and TNCSC Ltd., Chennai dt: 01.12.2005 which has been acknowledged by Respondent -2 ie Reply FAX dt: 05.12.2005, inform that these objections do not hold good. D. There is no notice issued before the procurement, therefore alleged Risk purchase is invalid.

E. There cannot be double penalty Forfeiture of security deposit towards the claim amount as a part cannot be considered as a Double penalty. This is the usual procedure corporation adopts. F. The time was not essence of the contract.

G. The claim of the claimant is Exorbitant and not sustainable and principles of mitigation of Damages have not been followed. H. Failure by claimant to file the vital/material documents.

I. Non production of Evidence claim of the claimant Based on No evidence. J. Non admission of claimant's document L. Non compliance of the Transparency in Tender Act, 1998 and Rules 2000. M/S Faqir Chand Vinod Kumar & Co are not new to the claimant corporation TNCSC Ltd., for Business deals. They have remitted security deposit, received tender documents signed agreements and their information that they have commenced supply on 26.09.2005 as per the agreement made, requested for a meeting in TNCSC Ltd., to sort out issues. The proposed purchase of 1000mt Green gram (whole) was intended to Government noon meal scheme which is an ongoing scheme for the welfare of students community, which cannot be disturbed at any level. The consequential loss claimed has been informed them by RPAD on 01.04.2006. He has come forwarded to the Arbitrator under the provisions of their agreement only. All these show, that the objections of the Respondent -2 are only after thought and deserves no consideration. K. Increase of the claim is not possible and Remote damages are claimed.

This may be reconsidered by the TNCSC Ltd., for a long standing relationship of both the parties. M. No claim of interest on damages is permissible It is true that the interest rate of 24% appears to be high. As a good will and gesture to their client parties, the TNCSC may consider a lesser and reasonable prevailing rate of interest.

Narrated points in the written arguments of the Respondent counsel on 19.8.08.

1. The Agreement itself is not valid as it is not signed by both the parties.

c) TNCSC  offer acceptance Lr.BS3076845/2005 Dt: 15.09.05 65-74
d) Respondent -2 Thiru. Faqir Chand Vinod Kumar & Co., Fax  to TNCSC  (10.10.2005) 77-

e) Meeting Request of R.2 referring TNCSC Ltd.,Letter Dt:15.09.2005(offfer acceptance & 1.12.2005) 89-

f) Information of notice of TNCSC sent by RPAD  (Act at P-283  =) regarding forfeiture of SD & pretender in case of non supply.

97-

g) Termination of agreement & claim of consequential loss of TNCSC Ltd.,

-BS3-76845/05 Dt: 19.4.2006 by RPAD. Act at P-281 (2/2) 103-112