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 Arbitrator's Award, Orders Settlement in Dispute; Allows Fresh Execution for Non-Compliance Within One Month.</h1> <h3>Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Versus Victor Cable Industries Ltd. and Ors.</h3> Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Versus Victor Cable Industries Ltd. and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Concluded Contract2. Reasoning and Evidence in Arbitrator's Award3. Risk Purchase and Liability4. Execution of the AwardDetailed Analysis:Issue 1: Concluded ContractThe primary contention was whether there was a concluded contract between the parties. M/s. Victor Cable Industries Ltd. argued that there was no concluded contract, asserting that the offer made was never accepted, and the exchange of offers amounted to counter-offers. The court noted that the company had submitted their acceptance of the terms as per the letter dated 5.12.89, with the validity period up to 15.2.90, and a purchase order was placed on 30.1.90. Despite subsequent requests for price variation, the company had accepted the additional order of 50 kms on the same terms and conditions. The court concluded that the contract was indeed concluded, as the company had acted with full awareness and submitted the bank guarantee, indicating acceptance of the terms.Issue 2: Reasoning and Evidence in Arbitrator's AwardThe objections raised by M/s. Victor Cable Industries Ltd. included claims that the arbitrator's award was unreasoned and based on no evidence. The court held that the arbitrator is not expected to write detailed judgments, but the award should have a nexus to the facts of the case. The arbitrator had considered the materials on record and provided sufficient reasoning to grant relief to DESU. The court emphasized that its jurisdiction to interfere with an arbitrator's award on these grounds is very limited, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in M/s. Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. UOI.Issue 3: Risk Purchase and LiabilityThe arbitrator had directed M/s. Victor Cable Industries Ltd. to pay DESU Rs. 40,07,225/- for the difference in risk purchase, with interest at 18% per annum if not paid within three months. The court upheld this finding, noting that the company had failed to make the requested supplies, leading to the risk purchase. The court found no fault in the arbitrator's decision, as it was based on the evidence and the concluded contract terms.Issue 4: Execution of the AwardThe court addressed the execution of the awards. Suit No. 1055/94, which involved another arbitration award in favor of M/s. Victor Cable Industries Ltd., had already been made the rule of the court, and objections by DESU were dismissed. Execution No. 200/2000, filed by the company to execute the award dated 6.2.96, was also disposed of. The court directed the parties to settle the accounts in accordance with the decrees and granted one month for payment. In case of default, the parties were allowed to file fresh execution if needed.Conclusion:The court rejected the objections filed by M/s. Victor Cable Industries Ltd., upheld the arbitrator's award dated 29.9.1993, and made it the rule of the court. The court also disposed of Suit No. 1055/94 and Execution No. 200/2000, directing the parties to settle accounts and make payments within one month, with the provision for fresh execution in case of default.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
