TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Arbitral Award Upheld in Case of Counterclaims & Contractual Terms</h1> <h3>M/s. Raj Kishan & Company Versus National Thermal Power Corporation</h3> The court upheld the arbitral award in a case involving limitation on counter claims, contractual terms, and modification of the award. The petitioner's ... - Issues Involved:1. Limitation on Counter Claims2. Contractual Terms and Excess Material Consumption3. Modification of the Arbitral AwardIssue 1: Limitation on Counter ClaimsThe petitioner challenged the arbitral award on the grounds that the counter claims of the respondent were barred by limitation. The petitioner argued that the respondent's demand for material accounting/reconciliation dated 06.12.1999 should have triggered the limitation period, thus requiring the respondent to file its counter claims within three years. The counter claims were filed in June 2004, beyond the prescribed period. The court, however, held that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and must be raised at the earliest before the Arbitral Tribunal. Since the petitioner did not raise this issue before the tribunal, it could not be entertained for the first time in proceedings u/s 34 of the Act. The court cited several judgments to support the view that the plea of limitation must be raised during the arbitral proceedings and not for the first time during the challenge to the award.Issue 2: Contractual Terms and Excess Material ConsumptionThe petitioner contended that the amount awarded for the respondent's counter claim regarding wastage and excess consumption of materials was in violation of Clause 8.3.1(e) of the contract, which limits unaccounted material to 10% of the value of the security deposit unless permitted in writing by the Engineer In-charge. The court found that the Arbitral Tribunal had interpreted the clause correctly and noted that the petitioner was not allowed to get undue enrichment. The tribunal's finding that there was excess consumption of materials was based on the evidence and was not disputed. The court upheld the tribunal's decision, stating that the interpretation of the contractual terms was logical and plausible.Issue 3: Modification of the Arbitral AwardThe petitioner also challenged the modification of the award, arguing that the amount awarded under Claim No. 2 was in addition to the amount already paid. The court found that the petitioner had admitted to receiving the amount way back in December 1997 and could not now claim otherwise. The court held that the petitioner could not take inconsistent stands and dismissed this objection as frivolous.ConclusionThe court dismissed the petitioner's objections, upheld the arbitral award, and imposed costs of Rs. 30,000 on the petitioner. The court emphasized that issues of limitation and contractual interpretation must be raised at the earliest during arbitral proceedings and cannot be introduced for the first time during a challenge to the award.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
