TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter the Arbitral Tribunal). 2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that had arisen between the parties in connection with certain purchase orders placed by the appellant on the respondent company. There is no dispute that the respondent company had, after receiving the said purchase orders, delivered the goods and had also raised the invoices for the same. 3. The appellant contends that the said goods were in turn supplied to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). However, the payments from BSNL were not forthcoming. It is the appellant's case that it had apprised the respondent that the goods purchased by it were for manufacturing of optical fiber cable to be supplied to BSNL. The appellant also claimed that it had informed the respondent that there was a delay in receipt of payments from BSNL and the same had resulted in the delay of payments to the respondent. 4. The respondent invoked the arbitration agreement between the parties by issuing a notice requesting for appointment of an arbitrator. It also approached the Supreme Court under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes. 5. By an order dated 15.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; xxx 50. In the present case, though the Invoices have not been fully paid since 2018, the interests of the Respondent also need to be balanced. There is one Invoice (AOL-18-6) for which the Claimant has stated that no interest will be claimed, but I do not find any similar waiver by the Claimant of any of the Invoices which are the subject matter of these proceedings. The Respondent does not dispute the quality of the Claimant's products supplied and has also admitted its liability towards the amounts due which has resulted in a payment to the Claimant of an instalment of $10,500 on 26.06.2020. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to award an interest of 8% p.a. on the amount of claim i.e. $194336.91 from the respective due dates of the Invoices (As Per Column E of the Table in Para 4 above) till the date of actual payment." 7. The appellant has confined the challenge to the impugned award on two grounds. First, that the impugned award is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Arbitral Tribunal did not have any jurisdiction to render the award. According to the appellant, there was no arbitrable dispute as it ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... arbitration agreement to institute its claim. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited: (1964) 2 SCR 599 in support of his contention. The reliance on the said decision is misplaced. The said decision was rendered in the context of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereafter the 1940 Act). 15. The appellant in the said case (Union of India) had sought to refer the disputes to arbitration in a suit instituted by the respondent. In the said context, the Supreme Court held that there was no dispute since the liability was admitted. Section 34 of the 1940 Act contains provisions for stay of the proceedings if the court is satisfied that there was no sufficient reason why the matter should not be referred in accordance with the arbitration agreement. Section 34 of the 1940 Act is set out below: "34. Power to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement. Where any party to an arbitration agreement or any person claiming under him commences any legal proceedings against any other party to the agreement or any person claiming under him i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p;xxxx xxxx xxxx "52. I must bear in mind that, as the Claimant has argued, BSNL is not a party to these proceedings, there is no clause in the contract which makes advertence to any back-to-back payments with BSNL, and in fact, the first time that BSNL is referred to by the Respondent is in its email dated 11.03.2019 [Page 70 / Claim]. None of these can have any bearing on the present proceedings, as the question that arises here is only one of liability of the Respondent, and not the reasons for the non payment. It may be well be true that the non-payment by BSNL has led to the present default, and for that, the remedy the Respondent must pursue is elsewhere. It cannot be used as a reason to reject the very valid claims made in the present proceedings." 20. It is apparent from a meaningful reading of the aforesaid paragraphs that there is no inconsistency. In paragraph 23 of the impugned award the Arbitral Tribunal had express....