The Telangana High Court has held that a different view taken by the arbitrator is not a ground to set aside the award. It was viewed that the Arbitrator after considering all the aspects has passed the impugned Award, which was confirmed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge.
The application filed by the appellant/petitioner to set aside the Award dated 12.05.2006 passed by the Sole Arbitrator respondent No.1, was dismissed.
The Respondent No.2 placed an order for the supply of Lead Antimony Alloy Wire in coiled form weighing 4/85 and No.2 of 8/87 for the quantity of 141207 kgs for a total sum of Rs.82,55,257/- with the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner supplied the material of 141207 kgs of wire ( 2992 coils ) during August 2004 and September 2004 along with the pre-inspection reports.
The petitioner raised bills bearing the Letter. Even after receiving bills, the amount was not paid. On that, the petitioner sent a reminder dated 08.10.2004, for which respondent No.2 sent a fax message on 03.11.2004 stating that the material sent by the petitioner was not found suitable for ‘end use’ since feeding of wire gets interrupted/stopped in the automatic processing machine as the wire gets bent, resulting in wastage of material, manpower and time, and view of this discrepancy, total consignment of 141207 kgs is not acceptable and stands rejected.
As per the terms of the Agreement, the petitioner has initiated the Arbitration proceedings for the realization of the claim. Sole Arbitrator-respondent after conducting Arbitration proceedings, passed Award dated 12.05.2006 allowing part of the claim of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.2,48,289/- about the material used by respondent No.2.
But, rejected the balance amount of Rs.16,78,599/- was because the petitioner collected back the rejected material as per the general terms and conditions of the supply order, so it is up to the petitioner to dispose of the material and the petitioner cannot claim from respondent No.2 the cost/loss including loss of interest due to quantity rejected and returned by respondent No.2.
The appellant submitted that the Court below and the Sole Arbitrator failed to consider the claim of the appellant from a proper perspective and that the Sole Arbitrator ought to have granted the entire amount as claimed by the appellant and prayed this Court to allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
A single bench of Justice M G Priyadarsini observed that the Arbitrator after considering all the aspects has passed the impugned Award, which was confirmed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at LB Nagar. The appellant failed to make out any of the grounds to set aside the impugned Award, which was confirmed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at LB Nagar. The Court dismissed the appeal.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
