TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of the contract – Held that:- The arbitrator had made a possible interpretation of the terms of contract and that the Court under Section 34 would not be justified in taking a different view - award is based on an interpretation of the terms of the contract which cannot be said to suffer from any perversity - award has taken due note of the clarification in the course of the recording of submissions - arbitrator has not ignored the relevant terms - appeal rejected in the favour of respondent. - Appeal No.71 of 2013 In Arbitratoin Petition No. 834 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 2-7-2013 - Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud And S. C. Gupte, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Firdosh Pooniwalla with Ms. Shraddha Vavhal i/b AKS Legal Consultants For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lation on any account. However new taxes or duties, if levied after the date of submission of last price bid but before the contractual date of completion shall be reimbursed at actuals, against production of documentary evidence in line with clause no.3.2.1 of Special Conditions of Contract. Cenvatable Service Tax shall be extra which shall be reimbursed by HPCL at actuals against documentary evidence in line with clause no.3.2.2 of Special Conditions of Contract. Details of Service Tax furnished by you along with your offer is detailed in Form-SP2 of Schedule of Rates enclosed to this Letter of Acceptance. Clause 3.2.2. of the special conditions inter alia provided as follows : 3.2.2 Service tax i) Unit rates/ Lumpsum prices in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y One Lac Seventy Nine thousand One hundred Seventy five only) 25,30,531.00(Twenty five lacThirty thousand Five hundred Thirty One only) The Appellant computed the amount of the taxable value of services under the contract at Rs.7,51,79,175/- and the amount of Cenvatable Service Tax at Rs.25,30,531/-. The note appended specified that the owner shall reimburse service tax against the production of cenvatable documentary evidence. The contention of the Appellant before the arbitral tribunal was that the amount of Rs.25,30,531/- did not constitute a ceiling. The Appellant has by a letter dated 11 January 2006, which was after the acceptance of contract dated 26 November 2005 stated that there was a calculation mistake in specif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as the Learned Single judge have failed to take adequate notice of the clarificatory emails dated 4 May 2006 and 5 May 2006. According to the Appellant, the arbitrator has not given any consideration to the clarifications issued by the Respondent. 8. On the other hand, counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent supported the award and the reasoning of the Learned Single Judge and urged that - (i) The Appellant was entitled to be reimbursed on actuals subject to what was specified in Form SP2 having due regard to the provisions of Clause 1.1 of the purchase order and Clause 3.2.2 of the special conditions; (ii) The clarification by the Respondent on 5 May 2006 only reiterated the provisions of Clause 3.2.2; and (iii) The arbitra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o take of the relevant provisions of the contract. Section 28(3) requires the arbitral tribunal to decide in accordance with the terms of the contract. The arbitrator has not ignored the relevant terms. The award is based on an interpretation of the terms of the contract which cannot be said to suffer from any perversity. As regards the clarification dated 5 May 2006, the email of the Respondent in response to the clarification which was sought by the Appellant on 4 May 2006 makes a reference to Clause 3.2.2(ii) of the special conditions which is extracted in the email. The award has taken due note of the clarification in the course of the recording of submissions. In any event, nothing much would turn thereon because the email did not in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
