TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot reappraise the matter as if it were an appeal and even if two views are possible, the view taken by the Arbitrator would prevail. - Decided against the appellants. - Civil Appeal Nos. 7128-7129 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 26-8-2014 - M. Y. Eqbal And Pinaki Chandra Ghose,JJ. JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. 1. These appeals have been filed assailing the common judgment and order dated 1.9.2009 passed by the Madras High Court in O.S.A. Nos.34 of 2009 and 140 of 2009 by which the High Court while allowing O.S.A. No.34 of 2009 filed by Respondent No.1, dismissed O.S.A. No.140 of 2009 filed by the appellant herein. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows: 2. The appellant offered a business proposal to the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rator was appointed. The first respondent filed a claim for a sum of ₹ 13,94,240/- together with interest on 16.10.2006. The Arbitrator published his award allowing the claim to the tune of ₹ 13,94,240/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, but disallowed the Minimum Guaranteed amount of ₹ 69,416/- per month for the remaining 69 months, commencing from July, 2003. Aggrieved by the award in respect of the disallowed claim, the first respondent challenged the award before the Madras High Court under by filing O.P. No.37 of 2007 and aggrieved over the entire award, the appellant challenged the same before the Madras High Court by filing O.P. No.362 of 2007 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. In these circumstances, the appeal filed by the first respondent, being OSA No.34 of 2009, was allowed and the appeal filed by the appellant, being OSA No.140 of 2009, was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. 5. We have perused the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. We have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Arbitrator and the Courts have failed to appreciate the fact that the claim was not on revenue sharing basis i.e. the gross income but it was on the basis of minimum guaranteed amount stated in the petitions. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant tried to argue before us that the alleged Agreement wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80; Madnani Construction Corporation Private Limited Vs. Union of India Ors., (2010) 1 SCC 549; Associated Construction Vs. Pawanhans Helicopters Limited, (2008) 16 SCC 128; and Satna Stone Lime Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India Anr., (2008) 14 SCC 785.) 7. We have also perused the clauses of the said Agreement, in particular clauses 3 5 of the Agreement. We find that the reasoning given by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be said to be perverse. Furthermore, the appellant never terminated the Agreement or requested the first respondent to take back the machinery. Now, at this stage it would not be proper for us to express further opinion in the matter when the matter/dispute has already been concluded by the Arbitrator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
