Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. On 19.03.2019, DSIIDC sent a letter to WPMS whereby, WPMS was called upon to submit the correct bills along with the relevant supporting documents in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the Agreement.

12. In response to the legal notice dated 18.10.2018, DSIIDC sent a letter dated 06.04.2019, alleging that WPMS had blatantly disregarded the Agreement by neither placing adequate security at the sites nor informing DSIIDC about the number of employees employed for the providing the Services. Further, DSIIDC also stated that no amount was due to WPMS and the sum of ₹5 crores was wrongly claimed by WPMS.

23. Aggrieved by the impugned award, DSIIDC has filed the present petition.

Submissions

24. Ms. Wani, learned counsel appearing for DSIIDC assailed the impugned award, essentially, on two grounds. First, she submitted that the Arbitral Tribunal had grossly erred in holding that any amount was payable to WPMS for providing the Services after 08.04.2018. She submitted that the Agreement for providing the Services was for a period of three-hundred and sixty-five days. However, prior to the expiry of the term of the Agreement, WPMS had by letter dated 02.11.2017, sought confirmation whether it should continue to provide Services beyond 08.11.2017. In response to the said letter, DSIIDC confirmed that the term of the Agreement was extended for a further period of five months with effect from 08.11.2017, therefore, the term of the Agreement expired on 08.04.2018. Admittedly, there was no written communication from DSIIDC extending the Agreement beyond 08.04.2018. She submitted that the conduct of WPMS clearly indicated that a written confirmation from DSIIDC was necessary. Since there was no written agreement extending the Agreement beyond 08.04.2018, the contention that WPMS had assumed that the Agreement was extended was untenable.

Reasons and Conclusion

26. The contentions as advanced by Ms. Wani were duly considered by the Arbitral Tribunal. There is no dispute that there was no written communication from DSIIDC extending the Agreement to provide Services from 08.04.2018. However, WPMS had established that it had written letters calling upon DSIIDC to confirm whether it should continue to provide the Services beyond 08.04.2018. The Arbitral Tribunal had specifically noted that WPMS had written a letter dated 30.04.2018 requesting DSIIDC to inform it whether it should continue the services beyond the said period. WPMS had also written a letter dated 14.05.2018 indicating that it was ready to handover the charge with effect from 15.05.2018. It was WPMS's case that it had continued to render services under instructions of the officers of DSIIDC. There was ample material on record to establish that WPMS had also sent several letters requesting that its dues be cleared; however, no response was received from DSIIDC.

29. It was DSIIDC's case that it had provided its own security guards after 08.04.2018. The Arbitral Tribunal found that DSIIDC had failed to establish the same. DSIIDC's witness (RW-1) had claimed that DSIIDC had deployed its own guard. However, the Arbitral Tribunal found the testimony of the said witness to be false. There was no material provided on record to establish any payment to the security guards. Further, no records were produced by DSIIDC to even remotely establish that any guards had been deployed at site. RW-1 was cross- examined in this regard but he had failed to produce any documents to establish deployment of guards by DSIIDC. On 18.08.2020, the Arbitral Tribunal had specifically directed the witness of DSIIDC to produce all documents along with copies of letters written by DSIIDC for deployment of security guards at sites which were the subject matter of disputes before the Arbitral Tribunal. However, despite specific orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, neither DSIIDC nor its witness (RW-1) had produced any documents to substantiate its assertion.