The High Court dismissed the original petition filed to set aside an arbitral award pertaining to a dispute over Value Added Tax (VAT) rates. The Court held that the Arbitrator had reasonably interpreted the contract and could not be treated as an appellate court to re-appreciate evidence.
The original petition is dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.07.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Original Petition No.151 of 2013
Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, Mezzanine Floor, Tirumailai Railway Station, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. .. Petitioner Vs.
Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the arbitral Award dated 24.09.2012 made in relation to disputes arising out of Contract Agreement No.RVNL/CPM/MAS/IPL-ICTT/OT-5, dated 30.05.2009.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.Thayumanavan for M/s.A.Jenasenan for R1.
2
ORDER
This original petition has been filed to set aside the arbitral Award dated 24.09.2012 made in relation to disputes arising out of Contract Agreement No.RVNL/CPM/MAS/IPL-ICTT/OT-5, dated 30.05.2009.
The agreement dated 13.09.2018 had entered between the petitioner and the respondents for manufacturing and supply of prestressed pretensioned concrete sleepers for bridges and bridge approaches to Drawing No.4088 Alt.3 and Drawing No.4089 to 4097 Alt.4 against the claim of VAT @ 12.5%. The respondents have admitted only 2% of VAT. Hence, the claim has been preferred for difference of VAT. The respondents assisted the above claim on the ground being the contract does not specify about the payment of VAT.
3
Further, despite the requisition made by the petitioner, the respondents have not provided any information as to the payment of VAT. Therefore, when the contract itself is very much silent about the payment of VAT, the Arbitrator has directed the petitioner to pay the VAT, which is against the terms of the contract.
4
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.
msv
08.07.2019
msv
O.P.No.151 of 2013
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the Arbitrator had reasonably interpreted the contract regarding VAT ra
Whether the lack of explicit mention of VAT reimbursement in the contract prevents the Arbitrator from directing the payment of the legally applicable tax.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rail Vikas Nigam Limited
M/s. Concrete Product and Construction Company
M/s. Jewal Chandan Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd.
N. Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
