Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

FAO (OS) 21/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES Page 12
14. L&T challenged this order so far as it directed return of title deeds and plans by filing FAO 319/2001. In terms of the directions of this Court, the deeds and plans were deposited with Registrar of this Court. The Tribunal framed 14 issues or points for decision. PCL also relied on the deposition of its Managing Director, Mohan Puri who was also cross- examined.
15. Based upon the extensive hearings held, the materials placed on record and the written submissions of the parties, the Tribunal published the award on 28.12.2002. The Tribunal's findings, inter alia, are that firstly L&T jeopardised PCL's obligations towards ITCREF, whose interest was set out and safeguarded in the Development Agreement. Secondly, the award held that L&T resiled from, and went back upon, its original contractual obligations and tried to make sales unilaterally, without sanction of the revised development plan and without making any provision for the responsibility towards ITCREF. The Tribunal was of the opinion that PCL could not make any sale on the basis of unsanctioned development plans because that would have been illegal and entailed the risk of cancellation of licences. Thirdly, the Tribunal accepted PCL's contention that L&T had consciously decided to abandon the Development Agreement and omitted to pay the EDC and also defaulted in fulfillment of its obligations to the statutory authorities, ITCREF, as well as LKB. Fourthly, the Tribunal held that the object of the Supplementary Agreement (as consideration for the said contract's implementation) was unlawful because it sought to defeat the beneficial interest of the ITCREF, which was a signatory to the Development Agreement as a consenting party. The Tribunal also held that FAO (OS) 21/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES Page 13 the Supplementary Agreement was tainted by economic coercion and the signatures of PCL were obtained by withholding trust property. Challenge to the award and the impugned judgment

21. Mr. Jethmalani relied on Section 34 and stressed that it did not vest jurisdiction upon the Court to step into the shoes of the Tribunal and re-write the award or to sit as an appellate court. It was highlighted that the Arbitrator was a retired Judge of the Supreme Court, a highly respected and competent jurist and it could not be stated that the award disclosed fundamental breach of substantive provisions of any law, or was contrary to terms of the contract. Reliance was placed on the decisions reported as Puri Construction v. Union of India 1989 (1) SCC 411; State of Orissa v. Kalinga Construction - 1970 (2) SCC 861; State of Rajasthan v. Puri Construction Co. Ltd 1994 (6) SCC 485 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar 1980 (4) SCC 497.

"These only indicate that right from the start, the respondent was not at all serious about the taking-up work of development. The claimant had led evidence to show the repeated breaches committed by the respondent. As stated earlier, the respondent has not led any evidence whatsoever. Mr. Mohinder Puri was cross-examined at length by Mr. Atul. S. Rajadhyaksha, learned counsel for the respondent. On question of abandonment of site by the respondent, in the cross- examination, Mr. Mohinder Puri has elaborated his evidence inter alia in question nos. 49, 149, 192, 199, 200, 201 and 202. The respondent has chosen not to examine Mr. K.V. Rangaswami, Mr. H.S. Chandrasekhar, Mr. V.B. Gadgil, Mr. N. Narendra even opposed to summon the said officers in the arbitration case. The respondent chose not to lead evidence of said officers and also refused to disclose material correspondence exchanged between these officers and the reports of the consultants, namely Boston Consulting Group, USA. In view of the unrebutted evidence, Mr. Mohinder Puri which was not taken on cross-examination, the admitted documents on record and admission/deemed admissions made by the respondent in respect of bulk of the case of the claims and adverse inference that must be drawn on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clearly established that L&T had taken a conscious decision to abandon the FAO (OS) 21/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES Page 60 project and had taken steps not to pay EDC or fulfill their obligations to the statutory authority and to ITCREF......."
"In the facts and circumstances of the case, as indicated earlier, and in view of the categorical deposition of Mr. Mohinder Puri and other evidences on the record, this Tribunal finds that Mr. Mohinder Puri had signed the supplementary agreement dated 30.12.1999 and the Tripartite Agreement dated 10.01.2000 under compulsion and in dire need of funding of EDC payments. In the Tripartite Agreement, LKB has sanctioned certain amounts of loan to claimants which were the liability of the respondents."