Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

76. But I do not think that the above contention can be sustained, in view of the clear facts borne out by records. Admittedly, the agreement entered into on 17.4.2013 clearly described the respondent as a company which was formerly known as Goyal MG Gases Private Limited. It was only after more than a month that the respondent chose to send a letter dated 21.5.2013 that the respondent is a distinct and separate entity than Goyal MG Gases Private Limited. Before this letter was received by the applicant, the applicant moved I.A.No.2 of 2012 before the Arbitral Tribunal on 23.5.2013, for declaring some of the prayers made by the respondent as having become infructuous. Even after the receipt of the letter dated 21.5.2013, the applicant consistently addressed the respondent, by including within brackets the words "formerly known as Goyal MG Gases Private Limited". Eventually, the respondent itself was frustrated and gave a deadline to the applicant that the contract cannot be proceeded with, unless the issue relating to identity is resolved.

"3. This respondent submits that the parties have entered into a new contract signed on 17.4.2013 and fresh PDC's have been handed over by this respondent to the claimant. The claimant have returned 17 number of cheques to the respondent. In the light of the above prayer "A" in the application has become redundant and infructuous. In so far as relief sought for in prayer "B" is concerned in the light of the new contract as in aforementioned the parties have exchanged draft of the land lease agreement and thus the relief does not survive.

4. The present statement is being preferred to place that the relief sought for in prayer "A" & "B" of the application has become infructuous pursuant to the parties signing the new contract dated 17.4.2013. This respondent in light of the above facts that recently arose is filing the new contract dated 17.4.2013, draft of the cancellation of land lease agreement and draft of the new land lease agreement and prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to take the aforementioned memo in record and pass such further or suitable orders."

97. Therefore, it is clear that by entering into a fresh contract on 17.4.2013 with the very same party viz., Goyal MG Gases Private Limited, the applicant had thought that they could make some prayers as infructuous right there. They also thought that some more prayers retained in the original and additional claim petition filed by Goyal MG Gases Private Limited, could be made infructuous, by working out the contract dated 17.4.2013. This is for the reason that Goyal MG Gases Private Limited had claimed damages for the whole period of their contract, that was to run upto the year 2025. If Goyal MG Gases Private Limited itself had been the contracting party to the agreement dated 17.4.2013 and if the contract dated 17.4.2013 had run its course fully without any impediment, Goyal MG Gases Private Limited, would not stand a chance of getting any compensation at least for the period from 17.4.2013 to 31.12.2025.