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>Court Upholds Arbitration Award: Modifies Interest Rate to 12%, Dismisses Counter-Claims, Denies Liquidated Damages.</h1> <h3>Indian Oil Corporation Versus Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd.</h3> The court upheld the arbitrator's award, rejecting the petitioner's challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, except for ... - Issues Involved:1. Competence to recover liquidated damages.2. Delay in execution of the contract.3. Time being the essence of the contract.4. Justification for imposition of liquidated damages.5. Entitlement to interest and refund of retained monies.6. Counter-claims by the petitioner.Detailed Analysis:Competence to Recover Liquidated Damages:The petitioner invoked Clause 4.4.0.0 of the General Conditions of Contract to recover liquidated damages of 10% of the contract value due to delays in execution. The arbitrator ruled that the imposition of these damages was unjustified, leading to the petitioner challenging this decision under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Delay in Execution of the Contract:The arbitrator found that the delay was attributable to both parties. The Engineers India Limited (EIL) committee determined that 5 months and 13 days of delay were beyond the respondent's control and attributable to the petitioner. The remaining delay was attributed to the respondent. This finding was accepted by the court.Time Being the Essence of the Contract:The arbitrator concluded that although time was initially intended to be of the essence, successive extensions granted by the petitioner rendered this condition insignificant. The court agreed, noting that the delay in the pipeline reaching Jodhpur meant that the urgency to complete the terminal within the original timeframe lost its importance.Justification for Imposition of Liquidated Damages:The arbitrator held that to impose liquidated damages under Clause 4.4.0.0, the petitioner needed to prove actual loss due to the delay. Since the terminal could not be used commercially until August 1996, well after its completion in March 1996, the petitioner suffered no loss. The court upheld this finding, emphasizing that liquidated damages require proof of loss, which was not established in this case.Entitlement to Interest and Refund of Retained Monies:The arbitrator awarded the respondent interest at 18% per annum from October 1, 1998, until the date of the award and future interest at the same rate until payment. The court found this rate excessive and modified it to 12% per annum from January 1, 1998, until payment, aligning with prevailing market rates and Supreme Court guidelines.Counter-Claims by the Petitioner:The petitioner's counter-claims for losses due to interest blockage, investment delay, manpower expenditure, and electricity payments were rejected. The arbitrator found no evidence supporting these claims, and the court agreed, noting that the delay in the pipeline reaching Jodhpur negated any alleged losses.Conclusion:The court concluded that no case was made to interfere with the arbitrator's award on merits, except for the reduction of the interest rate to 12% per annum. The challenge to the award was rejected, and the petition was partly allowed only to modify the interest rate. No costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
