Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 46 (1.66 seconds)
Documents citing Ministry Of Defence, Government Of ... vs Cenrex Sp. Z.O.O & Ors. on 8 December, 2015

M/S Atc Foods Private Limited vs Union Of India & Others on 28 September, 2022

29. It is not the case of the present respondent buyer laid before the Arbitral Tribunal that due to nature of contract, losses cannot be easily calculated, so claimed liquidated damages as pre- estimated damages were to be awarded as per Section 73 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872; without proving and showing how much loss has been caused. It had been argument of Ld. Counsel for respondent/purchaser that due to non supply of contracted material/goods by the petitioner, the whole process of OMP (Comm.) No. 132/2021 M/S ATC FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Page 28 of 37 procurement was disrupted. The quality of rice which was required to be supplied to the Armed Forces could not be procured by the nodal agency i.e., APO. Thereafter local units had to procure alternate material/goods on adhoc basis across India in small quantities which was not the equivalent to the rice which the claimant/petitioner failed to supply and it had caused damages to the respondents/buyers which cannot be collated and quantified. The letter of termination of contract dated 15/01/2019, above elicited, does not contain averment of any of those facts above said, which have been argued orally by Ld. Counsel for respondents nor does that letter dated 15/01/2019 for termination of contract by buyer/respondents finds any mention of alternate quantity of supply/goods was procured by any local units of respondents/buyers and such procured quantity of supply/goods was not equivalent to the rice which petitioner/claimant failed to supply. Even respondent/buyers did not plead before Ld. Sole Arbitrator in arbitral proceedings nor led any evidence to prove of having so procured any alternate quantity/quality of supply/rice in any manner, so as to qualify any risk purchase. No material was laid before Ld. Sole Arbitrator to also reflect as to what alternate purchase of the supplies/goods were done by the purchaser/respondents and the amount spent on it was in any manner in excess of the amount contracted by respondent/purchaser with the petitioner/contractor/supplier, so as to put forth or lay any claim for suffering any loss due to non delivery of contracted goods by petitioner/claimant/contractor. Reliance of Ld. Counsel for respondents on the case of Ministry of Defence, Government of India vs CENREX SP. Z.O.O. & Ors. (supra) is misplaced; more so, when in the fact of the OMP (Comm.) No. 132/2021 M/S ATC FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Page 29 of 37 matter, quantification of loss for any alternate purchases done was possible, for the purchaser/respondent.
Delhi District Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Atc Foods Private Limited vs Union Of India on 26 October, 2024

34. It is not the case of the respondent herein before the Arbitral Tribunal that due to nature of contract, losses cannot be easily calculated, so claimed liquidated damages as pre-estimated damages were to be awarded as per Section 73 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872; without proving and showing how much loss has been caused. Ld. Counsel for respondent argued that due to non supply of contracted material/goods by the petitioner, the whole process of procurement was disrupted. The quality of rice which was required to be supplied to the Armed Forces could not be procured by the nodal agency i.e., APO. Thereafter local units had to procure alternate material/goods on adhoc basis across India in small quantities which was not the equivalent to the rice which the claimant/petitioner failed to supply and it had caused damages to the respondents which cannot be collated and quantified. The respondent buyers did not plead before Ld. Sole Arbitrator in arbitral proceedings nor led any evidence to prove of having so procured any alternate quantity/quality of supply in any manner, so as to qualify any risk purchase. No material was laid before Ld. Sole Arbitrator to also reflect as to what alternate purchase of the supplies/goods were done by the respondents and the amount spent on it was in any manner in excess of the amount contracted by respondent with the petitioner, so as to put forth or lay any claim for suffering any loss due to non delivery of contracted goods by petitioner. Reliance of Ld. Counsel for ATC food Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India Page No.22 of 25 OMP (comm) No.128/2021 respondents on the case of Ministry of Defence, Government of India vs CENREX SP. Z.O.O. & Ors. (supra) is misplaced; more so, when in the fact of the matter, quantification of loss for any alternate purchases done was possible, for the respondent.
Delhi District Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Atc Foods Private Limited vs Union Of India on 26 October, 2024

37. It is not the case of the respondent herein before the Arbitral Tribunal that due to nature of contract, losses cannot be easily calculated, so claimed liquidated damages as pre-estimated damages were to be awarded as per Section 73 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872; without proving and showing how much loss has been caused. Ld. Counsel for respondent argued that due to non supply of contracted material/goods by the petitioner, the whole process of procurement was disrupted. The quality of rice which was required to be supplied to the Armed Forces could not be procured by the nodal agency i.e., APO. Thereafter local units had to procure alternate material/goods on adhoc basis across India in small quantities which was not the equivalent to the rice M/s ATC Foods Vs. Union of India Page No.24 of 27 OMP (comm) No.126/2021 which the claimant/petitioner failed to supply and it had caused damages to the respondents which cannot be collated and quantified. The respondent buyers did not plead before Ld. Sole Arbitrator in arbitral proceedings nor led any evidence to prove of having so procured any alternate quantity/quality of supply in any manner, so as to qualify any risk purchase. No material was laid before Ld. Sole Arbitrator to also reflect as to what alternate purchase of the supplies/goods were done by the respondents and the amount spent on it was in any manner in excess of the amount contracted by respondent with the petitioner, so as to put forth or lay any claim for suffering any loss due to non delivery of contracted goods by petitioner. Reliance of Ld. Counsel for respondents on the case of Ministry of Defence, Government of India vs CENREX SP. Z.O.O. & Ors. (supra) is misplaced; more so, when in the fact of the matter, quantification of loss for any alternate purchases done was possible, for the respondent.
Delhi District Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S Bansal Industries on 12 November, 2021

33. Even letter dated 19/10/2011 of petitioner sent to respondent regularizing delivery period of subject AT up to 28/04/2011 with OMP (Comm.) No. 169/2019 Union of India vs. M/s Bansal Industries Page 29 of 31 liquidated damage charges of Rs. 44,84,277/- finds no mention of any fact that petitioner had suffered any loss on account of delayed delivery of the stores/goods in question. Relying upon the law laid in the cases of (i) Associate Builders (supra); (ii) Ssangyong Engineering & Constructions Co. Ltd. (supra); (iii) M/s Tamilnadu Telecommunication Ltd (supra); (iv) Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India (supra); (v) Swan Gold Mining Ltd. vs Hindustan Copper Ltd.(supra); (vi) Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Saw Pipes Ltd., (supra); (vii) M/s Arosan Enterprises Ltd (supra); (viii) MCD vs Harcharan Dass Gupta Construction Pvt Ltd. (supra); (ix) Patel Engineering Ltd. (supra); (x) G. Ramachandra Reddy & Company vs Union of India and Anr., 2009 (6) SCC 414; (xi) Sutlej Construction vs Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2018 1 SCC 718; (xii) M/s National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr., (2016) 154 DRJ 42; (xiii) Veda Research Laboratories Ltd vs Survi Projects, 2013 (2) Arb.
Delhi District Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Indian Agro Marketing Co-Operative Ltd on 29 November, 2021

23. Relying upon the law laid in the cases of (i) Associate Builders (supra); (ii) Ssangyong Engineering & Constructions Co. Ltd. (supra); (iii) M/s Tamilnadu Telecommunication Ltd (supra); (iv) Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India (supra); (v) Swan Gold Mining Ltd. vs Hindustan Copper Ltd.(supra); (vi) Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Saw Pipes Ltd., (supra);
Delhi District Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S Derpa Industries Polymers (P) Ltd on 30 November, 2021

(iii) M/s Tamilnadu Telecommunication Ltd (supra); (iv) Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India (supra); (v) Swan Gold Mining Ltd. vs Hindustan Copper Ltd.(supra); (vi) Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Saw Pipes Ltd., (supra); (vii) M/s Arosan Enterprises Ltd (supra); (viii) MCD vs Harcharan Dass Gupta Construction Pvt Ltd. (supra) and (ix) Patel Engineering Ltd. (supra); excepting as above elicited typographical/clerical mistake in the date in award of second portion of interest for future interest; it can be said that not only the reasonings of the Ld. Sole Arbitrator are logical, but all the material and evidence were taken note of by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator and this Court cannot substitute own evaluation of conclusion of law or fact to come to the conclusion other than that of the Ld. Sole Arbitrator. Cogent grounds, sufficient reasons have been assigned by Ld. Sole Arbitrator in reaching the just OMP (Comm.) No. 192/2019 Union of India vs M/s Derpa Industries Polymers (P) Ltd. Page 27 of 28 conclusion and no error of law or misconduct is apparent on the face of the record. This Court cannot re-appraise the evidence and it is not open to this Court to sit in the appeal over the conclusion/findings of facts arrived at by Ld. Sole Arbitrator, an experienced Advocate who was competent to make assessment while taking into consideration the facet of the matter. Re- appraisal of the matter cannot be done by this Court. No error is apparent in respect of the impugned award. I do not find any contradiction in the observations and findings given by Learned Sole Arbitrator. The impugned award does not suffer from vice of irrationality and perversity. The conclusion of the arbitrator is based on a possible view of the matter, so the Court is not expected to interfere with the award. Even impugned award passed by Learned Sole Arbitrator cannot be set aside on the ground that it was erroneous. The award is not against any public policy nor against the terms of contract of the parties. No ground for interference is made out. None of the grounds raised by the petitioner attract Section 34 of the Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S Indian Agro Marketing Co-Operative ... on 28 April, 2022

26. It is not the case of present petitioners laid before Arbitral Tribunal that due to nature of contract losses cannot be easily calculated so as to claim liquidated damages as per Section 74 of The Indian Contract Act without proving and showing how much loss has been caused. There had been no pleading of present petitioners before Arbitral Tribunal of having suffered any loss due to non delivery of contracted goods by respondent/ claimant/contractor. Even present petitioners did not plead before Ld. Sole Arbitrator in arbitral proceedings for having done any risk purchase. Reliance of Ld. Counsel for present petitioners on the case of Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India vs CENREX SP Z.O.O (supra) is misplaced.
Delhi District Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S Indian Agro Marketing Co-Operative ... on 28 April, 2022

26. It is not the case of present petitioners laid before Arbitral Tribunal that due to nature of contract losses cannot be easily calculated so as to claim liquidated damages as per Section 74 of OMP (Comm.) No. 136/2019 Union of India & Anr Vs Indian Agro Marketing Co-operative Ltd Page 22 of 27 The Indian Contract Act without proving and showing how much loss has been caused. There had been no pleading of present petitioners before Arbitral Tribunal of having suffered any loss due to non delivery of contracted goods by respondent/ claimant/contractor. Even present petitioners did not plead before Ld. Sole Arbitrator in arbitral proceedings for having done any risk purchase. Reliance of Ld. Counsel for present petitioners on the case of Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India vs CENREX SP Z.O.O (supra) is misplaced.
Delhi District Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next