TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (1) TMI 679
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondent appointed Justice P.N. Khanna (Retd.) as the Sole Arbitrator as per the arbitration clause between the parties. The Sole Arbitrator has made and published his Award on 15.03.1994. In terms of the Award, some of the claims of the petitioner had been accepted, while others had been rejected. (2) The respondent herein has filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the Arbitration Act'). The petitioner has also filed an application under Section 15 of the Arbitration Act only to the extent that the petitioner claims conversion of the award in Deutsche Mark @ Rs.20/- as against the exchange rate of Rs.4.50 allowed by the Arbitrator. (3) On 29.11.2005, when the matter was listed for final hearing, a request for adjournment was made on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent. It was noticed that a perusal of the order- sheet showed that the matter had been adjourned from time to time either on account of non-presence of the counsel for the respondent or because of a request made for adjournment. Last opportunity was granted to the respondent to make submissions on the next date of hearing and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Constructions, (2003) 7 SCC 396, it has been once again reiterated that Section 30 of the said Act providing for setting aside an award is restrictive in its operation and unless one of the conditions specified therein is satisfied, an award cannot be set aside. The Arbitrator is a Judge chosen by the parties and his decision is final. Thus, an error apparent on the face of the record would not imply closer scrutiny on the merits of the documents and the material on record. (7) It is in view of the aforesaid parameters that the award of the Sole Arbitrator has to be examined. (8) A perusal of the Award shows that there is no dispute about the fact that contract could not be implemented within the time stipulated. It was the case of the petitioner that there was a delay on the part of the respondent of 13 months in handing over the site for which the scheduled date was 31.03.1984. The main sophisticated items of equipment and allied items were to be fabricated in West Germany, but rest of the items consisting mainly of steel structures were to be fabricated and procured in India. Since the site was not ready fully and part of the site could not be handed over before April, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bitrator rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not be expected to perform its promises until and unless the respondent was willing to perform its reciprocal promises. In view of the provisions of Sections 54 and 55 of the Contract Act, the petitioner was entitled to claim compensation for any loss which it may have sustained, especially when the petitioner had given-written notices in the form of numerous letters to the respondents informing the respondent that the petitioner will be claiming all losses sustained by it due to delay in handing over of the site. These letters have been produced on record and have been considered by the Arbitrator. (11) At this stage, it may be noticed that Section 51 of the Contract Act provides that a promisor is not bound to perform, unless reciprocal promises is ready and willing to perform his promises. Section 52 provides that where the order in which reciprocal promises are to be performed is expressly fixed by the contract, then they shall be performed in that order which the nature of transaction requires. Section 53 provides for liability of a party in case of a contract containing reciprocal promises and one party to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the statement of claim was filed till the date of payment. This was with the condition that in case the payment was made within 4 months from the date of the award, the interest rate would be only 15%. The payment has not been made. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly confines his claim of interest to 12% p.a. from 01.09.1991 till the date of decree, which is also the prevailing market rate of interest at the relevant period of time and the interest rate, which has been so awarded by this Court in numerous matters. (16) The material aspect, which is noticed from the objections filed by the respondent and the written synopsis is that the substratum of the submission of the respondent is that the Arbitrator fell into an error in not appreciating the documents correctly and coming to the conclusion that the delay was attributable to the respondent. It has further been stated that the specific clauses and covenants of the contract have not been considered in their true perspective. (17) It has already been noticed above that the aforesaid can hardly be said to be grounds for interference under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act in view of various authoritative pronoun....