Legal Dictation Matter from Original Judgment

 

The present appeal under section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 read with section 10 the Delhi High Act 1966 and section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 has been filed by the Union of India, Ministry of Railways and North Eastern Railways impugning judgment rendered by the learned single judge of this court whereby the learned single judge has upheld arbitral award made by the learned Sole Arbitrator in arbitral proceedings between the Railways.

The Railways had filed a petition under section 34 of the Act challenging arbitral award in which award the learned Sole Arbitrator had directed the Railways to refund to the sum which had been deducted withheld by the Railways as liquidated damages imposed upon for alleged breach of the terms and conditions of a tender, pursuant to which a Letter of Acceptance was issued by the Railways to supply pre-stressed concrete sleepers.

By the impugned judgment, the learned single Judge has upheld the arbitral award and has also awarded interest for the delay in payment of the awarded sum. Briefly, disputes arose between the Railways in relation to alleged non-performance and non-compliance with the terms. As per the record, after issuance of the requested the Railways for an additional order, representing that their capacity was to manufacture 2500 sleepers per month; It is the Railways contention that failed to supply even a single sleeper within the stipulated time nor did they obtain any extension of time for making such supply; whereupon, the contract comprised in the lapsed by time. Consequently, it is the contention of the Railways, that as per condition the Railways imposed liquidated damages. It is further contended that on grounds of non-performance, the Railways also terminated the contract.

Disputes having arisen between the parties, the learned Sole Arbitrator came to be appointed and entered upon reference. Subsequently he rendered the arbitral award awarding Rs. One Crore and against the Railways, which sum was directed to be refunded within 03 months from the date of the award. For completeness, it may be mentioned that the Railways had also preferred a counter-claim in the sum of Rs. Ten Lac only against arbitral proceedings.

It Is the contention of the Railways was amended by the 2nd whereby, apart from increasing the quantity of sleepers to be supplied was inserted in the terms and conditions of the contract. On finalisation of the new tender, the ordered quantity shall be reduced to the number of sleepers manufactured till the date of issue for the new contract. If the rate accepted in the new tender is higher than the updated rate on the date of issue and the manufactured quantity is less than the pro-rata quantity then the supplier will have to recoup the short- fall in the quantity on the same rate terms & conditions. This updated rate will be frozen on the date of issue for the shortfall quantity.