The High Court dismissed an original petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act challenging an award that refused most of the petitioner's claims for breach of contract, upholding the arbitrator's findings that claimed vouchers were fabricated.
Original Petition O.P.No.608 of 2014 dismissed with 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: 11.07.2019
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
O.P.No.608 of 2014
Om Spun Pipes & Concrete Works,
PRR Coony, Kavvur,
Nellore District (A.P.) - 524 137. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Rep. By the General manager,
Southern Railway, Chennai.
2. The Senior Divisional Engineer/Co.ord,
Southern Railway, Works Branch,
Tiruchirapalli.
3. The Divisional Engineer/CTR,
Works Branch,
Southern Railway, Tiruchirapalli.
4. The Arbitral Tribunal
represented by
Mr.Lalloo Singh,
Chief Administration Officer,
North Central Railway Presiding Arbitrator.
5. Mrs..Sujatha Jayaraj,
Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer/MAS
Southern Railway, Co-Arbitrator,
Chennai – 8.
6. Mr.S.G.Jundekeri,
Chief Electrical Service Engineer,
Southern Railway ICF, Perambur,
Chennai – 11. Co-Arbitrator .. Respondents
2
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the Award dated 06.02.2014 passed by the fourth respondent in dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3 made in Arbitration Dispute, bearing letter No.G.16/DGM/ARB/2011/33, dated 08.09.2011 and thereby, allow the petitioner's claim.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Padmanabhan for Mr.Francis Xavier For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Ramkumar – R1 to R3 O R D E R This petition has been filed challenging the Award dated 06.02.2014 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. 2. Originally, the letter of acceptance was given to the petitioner on 12.10.2007 for construction of 6 subways in various places. The time for completion of work is nine months and the work has to be completed on or before 11.07.2008. The contract also provides that the contractor has to obtain test reports from the Government authorities. As the performance of guarantee has not been executed by the contractor till 14.02.2008, the contract has been fore closed on 19.06.2009. In view of the same, claim has been preferred on various heads as detailed below :
3
Claim Description of Claim Amount
No. claimed (Rs.)
1. Idling of labour and machiner awaiting to 2,37,40,000/-
start the work from 01.12.2007 to
07.04.2009 (493 days) that is till the
foreclosure of the work
2. The materials were purchased for the 17,17,750/-
work and could not be utilized due to not
allowing the work to be executed and
some lost in wear and tear and theft and
balance resold in market at 50% of cost
of materials is claimed
3. Claim for expenditure incurred on test 60,000/-
reports which were not finalized
(approx.)
4. Loss of expenditure incurred on 2,00,000/-
establishment of office building, godown
for materials, sheds and mess charges
5. Loss o profit at 10% of the agreement 24,38,522/-
value for not allowing the work to be
executed.
6. Damages claimed on the expenditure Not quantified
incurred on claim Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 at
15% p.a. till the date of their payment
expenditure incurred on test reports which were not finalized and the rest of the
claim has been dismissed by the Arbitrators.
has not appreciated the fact that the respondents 1 to 3 have committed breach of contract by unilaterally terminating the contract without any justifiable reasons and thereby caused, huge loss to the petitioner, who had done all the required
4
works for commencing the work allotted to the petitioner. The Arbitral Tribunal has not considered the entire evidence and mechanically negatived the claim of the petitioner and the Award has to be set aside.
after a lapse of five months, the petitioner has not even executed the bank guarantee and has not commenced the work. The Arbitral Tribunal has considered the entire evidence and rightly passed the Award and the same cannot be interfered.
counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the entire materials available on record.
been created only to show the expenditure incurred by the petitioner. The learned Arbitrators have made threadbare analysis of the entire documents and
found that the vouchers have been fabricated only for the purpose of the claim. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Arbitrator has not considered the entire evidence and mechanically negatived the claim of the petitioner cannot be countenanced.
5
vrc
Index : Yes/ No Internet : Yes Speaking/Non-speaking Order
6
To
7
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
O.P.No.608 of 2014
11.07.2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the arbitral award dismissing the petitioner's claim for breach of contract.
Whether the finding of the Arbitral Tribunal that the petitioner's documents were fabricated warrants setting aside the award.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Om Spun Pipes & Concrete Works
The Union of India, Rep. By the General manager, Southern Railway, Chennai
The Senior Divisional Engineer/Co.ord, Southern Railway, Works Branch, Tiruchirapalli
The Divisional Engineer/CTR, Works Branch, Southern Railway, Tiruchirapalli
The Arbitral Tribunal represented by Mr.Lalloo Singh
Mrs.Sujatha Jayaraj
N. Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
