Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: patently illegal in Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Planetcast Technologies Ltd on 5 April, 2021Matching Fragments
(c) E-mail dated 19.10.2011 sent by the respondent's representative Ankush Singhal informing the exact amounts which had been passed by ONGC Finance with respect to the first quarter."
(v) The finding of Learned Arbitral Tribunal at para no. 142 of the impugned Award that the PM Reports do not show that the replacement equipment were not suitable is patently illegal as it is contrary to the material on record. Similarly, it is also stated that the finding in the same para that there is no letter on record regarding replacement equipment was not suitable is also patently illegal. It is further submitted that under the contract the respondent was required to maintain spare parts. The finding, that since the replacement equipment was taken from spares stored with ONGC they were "suitable", is a patently illegal finding as the respondent was contractually bound to replace faulty equipment with suitable equipment irrespective of whether such suitable replacements were available in the spares maintained with ONGC. For instance at site WIN a faulty Down converter was replaced by the respondent by an Up converter as a make- shift arrangement but the same cannot be considered as a suitable replacement in terms of clause 3.11. Even if this Up converter Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
(viii) The finding of para no. 147 that it was only vide petitioner's letter dated 30/07/2014 that the respondent came to know of the nature of non-performance deductions is perverse Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
vs. Planetcast Technologies Ltd. OMP (Comm) No. 31/19 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court) and contrary to the record, patently illegal and it ignores completely the letter dated 5/9/2013 and letter dated 03/03/2014 as also the testimony of Respondent's witness- CW1
(ix) That the finding in para no. 149 that PM Reports were required to indicate quantum of NPDs is patently illegal being contrary to clause 2.2.3.1 which provides for PM Reports but does not cast any such obligations. It is stated that the Learned Arbitral Tribunal being a creature of the contract of the parties cannot travel outside the confines of the contract and imposed obligations which are not found therein.
(x) That the Learned Arbitrator has committed further illegality which has completely ignored the actual reason that the petitioner relied upon the excel working sheets; that the said working sheets were relied upon to show that the respondent was at all times in the knowledge as to how much non-performance deductions had to be imposed.
24.4 The petitioner has challenged the said finding primarily on the ground that the finding of the Learned Arbitral Tribunal at para no. 142 of the Impugned Award to the effect that PM Reports do not show that the replacement equipment were not suitable is patently illegal and is contrary to the material on record; the finding that there is no letter on record that replacement equipment was not suitable is also patently illegal. It is further submitted that finding at para no. 143 of the Impugned Award to the effect that NPDs were deducted behind the back of the respondent is perverse. It is further argued that the Arbitral Tribunal has further committed patent illegality by holding that Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.