Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

First of all, we feel it apt to clarify at this stage itself, that those were the proceedings as engaged consideration in the said case was governed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 and they were not the proceedings which were under the I & B Code which is distinct and independent altogether in its applicability. The Ld. Senior Counsel for the Appellant has referred to Para 13 of the Judgment which too is extracted hereunder: -

"13. It is the categorical claim of the petitioner that a commercial offer containing an arbitration clause conveyed through e-mail dated 15-10-2007 for the supply of bauxite to the respondent is a valid offer. This offer was to expire by noon the following day i.e. on 16-10-2007. It is the definite case of the petitioner that after several exchanges of e-mails and agreeing on the material terms of the contract, the respondent conveyed their acceptance of the offer through e- mail on 16-10-2007 confirming the supply of five shipments of bauxite to be supplied from Australia to Vizag/Kakinada."

What he intends to argue is that, when a commercial order, which was emanating from a contractual obligation, is conveyed through an e-mail communication for supply of the product, as it was contemplated on the terms of the contract. The e-mail communication could be taken as to be an effective mode of communication for the purposes of imposition of a contractual liability or a right Inter Se between the parties. There cannot be any doubt with regards to that aforesaid ratio, but, as far as what effect the e-mail communications would have is a question to be adjudicated, once it is disputed and debated upon and established by the Courts, the same has to be yet addressed upon by the principal Tribunal, before whom the proceedings are to be decided on merits, as to whether at all the e-mail communications which the appellant relies upon for having remitted the amount which was admittedly due to be paid, as to be the basis for substantiating his argument, in the light of Regulation 30A for seeking a direction against the Respondent for withdrawal of Section 9 proceedings, would yet be an issue which is yet to be decided by the Ld. Tribunal on merits. And at this stage, the e-mail communications, which are claimed by the Appellant are not disputed, as alleged by the Appellant, may not be an issue, which would be required, to be answered by us in an elaborate manner, particularly when the Respondent had denied with regards to the propriety of the e-mail communications and the consequential follow-up action, which is followed, amongst the parties qua the liabilities which was flowing from the proceeding under Section 9 of I & B Code, be that as it may. All these aspects would be considered by the Tribunal itself when the matter under Section 9 of the I & B Code, itself is taken to be considered on merits. We should deter to remark on it at this stage.