Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2013 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 85 - DELHI HIGH COURTArbitration and Conciliation - appellant declined to make any payment taking a stand that the respondent had not achieved the CBV of Rs.250 crores and additionally had also failed to maintain the Return On Investment (ROI) in the ratio 3:1 as envisaged by the agreement - respondent informed having achieved Cumulative Price Differential of more than Rs.8 crores, a figure which was above what was to be achieved under the contract - respondents served a legal notice on the appellant calling upon it to make payment in sum of Rs.1,72,40,906/-, to which appellant responded on June 20, 2005 denying any liability - dispute got referred to arbitration - Held that:- The Arbitrator returned a finding of fact after considering the documentary evidence that the appellant had consented to 2 projects being postponed due to market conditions being volatile. Interpreting the contract and in particular Article 6.1 of Schedule 1 the he opined that the appellant were obliged to make monthly payments and refusal to make payments after August 2003 entitled respondent to not proceed ahead with the work. Though not so expressly stated by the learned Arbitrator, it is apparent that the agreement was read as containing reciprocal obligations with commitment of the appellant being to make a monthly payment and the reciprocal obligation of the respondent being to proceed ahead with the work. The Arbitrator, after adjusting the amounts paid, awarded the first claim i.e. commitment fee in sum of Rs.1,53,90,360/-. Rejecting the volume deficit fee because of the finding that there was consent even by the respondent to postpone 2 projects and finally give up the same due to market conditions not being favourable, Rs.1 lakh was awarded towards reimbursement of expenses. Pre-claim interest was awarded in sum of Rs.25,16,687/- and pendente lite and future interest was awarded @ 9% per annum. Cost of arbitration in sum of Rs.15 lakhs was awarded. Needless to state the counter claims were denied. The Single Judge has held that judicial interference to an award is not to sit as an Appellate Court. Where a contract falls for interpretation, the Arbitrator is the final judge to interpret the contract and findings of fact arrived at by an Arbitrator cannot be questioned save and except as being perverse or based on no evidence or ignoring relevant evidence. We refuse to deal with all the contentions urged in appeal for the reason each and every contention has been dealt with by the learned Arbitrator - appeal is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
|