Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. Referring to the provisions of section 48(2) of  the Act, it was contended by the learned counsel  appearing   for   the   respondent   that   the   damages  would   mean   the   damages   immediate   and   not   for  profiteering.

23. Referring to the provisions of section 51(3) of  the   U.K.   Sale   of   Goods   Act   as   well   as   section  51(2)   of   the   said   Act,   Mr.   Soparkar   learned  counsel   appearing   for   the   respondent   contended  that it has to be exact damages.   Referring to  the awards in origin as well as the awards passed  by   the   appellate   board   of   GAFTA,   Mr.   Soparkar,  contended   that   the   amount   awarded   is   more   than  its   true   loss   and   it   is   an   unusual   case   which  would shock the conscience of this Court. It was  further   contended   that   even   according   to   the  petitioner,   the   actual   loss   is   much   less   than  what   is   awarded.     It   was   contended   that  approximately,   the   amount   of   13   million   USD   is  awarded for 9 contracts only.

29. Referring   to   Section   57   of   the   Indian   Sale   of  Goods Act and Section 73 of the Indian Contract  Act,   it   was   contended   by   Mr.   Soparkar   that   the  provision is to pay direct loss and not indirect  loss   and   not   for   profiteering   and   the   parties  cannot be made richer. Mr. Soparkar also further  contended that the parties had entered into back  to back contracts and have adopted the cause and  minimise   the   loss   and   the   petitioners   have  adopted such a cause whereby they have minimised  the loss and therefore the petitioners cannot ask  for more.

30. Referring   to   Section   73   of   the   Indian   Contract  Act as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in  the case of Messrs. Torjan & Company Vs. RM.N.N.  Nagappa Chettiar reported in AIR 1953 SC 235, it  was   contended   by   Mr.   Soparkar,   learned   counsel  appearing for the respondents that a party cannot  be   awarded   astronomical   profits   that   he   would  have   made.   Mr.   Soparkar   contended   that   if   the  petitioner would have purchased it from the open  market,   to   satisfy   the   back   to   back   contracts  entered into by the petitioner with its proposed  buyer, only in such circumstances, it can claim  for   profit   which   otherwise   is   not   entitled   to.  It was submitted that the petitioner cannot claim  greater amount than penalty which is permissible.

66. On   the   aforesaid   grounds,   it   was   therefore  HC-NIC Page 28 of 96 Created On Sat Aug 12 13:46:18 IST 2017 O/IAAP/2/2017 ORDER submitted   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the  petitioner   that   9   Arbitration   Awards   are  appropriate,   just   and   proper   and   enforceable  under the Indian law.

67. Mr. Soparkar, learned counsel for the respondents  has  reiterated  the  arguments   which  were  already  canvassed.   Mr.  Soparkar  further  contended  that  the   present   awards   are   not   merely   violative   of  Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act but it is  also such that it would shock the conscience of  the Court and has given further example, which is  enumerated as below ­ If A agrees to sell the goods to B at Rs.95   and B would be selling it further to C, to  make   a   profit   of   Rs.3   on   it,   and   deposits   Rs.2 with C as security; then in the event   of   default   by   A,   B   ought   to   be   awarded   a   maximum   compensation   of   Rs.5   (i.e.   Rs.   3  towards   loss   of   profit   and   Rs.2   towards  forfeiture of deposit by C).  However, if B   is   awarded   a   compensation   of   Rs.105,   by  calculating   the   difference   between   the   market   price   (say   Rs.   200   on   the   date   of  default)   and   the   contract   price   (i.e.   Rs.95),   the   B   would   be   making   a   colossal  profit out of the breach of contract by A,   which   cannot   be   permitted.     Even   if   the  contract   would   have   been   performed   by   A,  then B would have earned profit of Rs.3 and   not Rs.105.  Grant of Rs.105 to B, would be  something   which   would   shock   the   conscience   of this Hon'ble Court and would be against  the public policy of India.