Delhi District Court
National Seeds Corporation Ltd vs Kashipur Agro Industries Pvt Ltd on 21 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ANURAG SAIN, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT-01), PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW
DELHI
OMP (COMM) 90/2019
National Seeds Corporation Ltd.
Having its office at
Beej Bhawan, Pusa Complex,
New Delhi-110012
.........Petitioner
Versus
Kashipur Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at
A-43, DDA Flats, Saket,
New Delhi-110017
Also having its corporate office at
Patel Nagar, Kashpur,
District Udham Singh Nagar
Uttarakhand
through its Managing Director
Mr. Rajat Bathla
.......Respondent
Date of institution : 10.05.2019
Date of reserving judgment : 21.05.2025
Date of pronouncement : 21.05.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Digitally signed
by ANURAG
ANURAG SAIN
SAIN Date:
2025.05.21
16:55:44 +0530OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 1 of 35
Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the petitioner for setting
aside the Arbitral Award dated 11.02.2019 passed by the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner as an
Undertaking of the Central Government floated notice inviting
tender for production and delivery of specified seeds and the
respondent which is a Small Scale Industry registered with the
Department of Industries and engaged in the business of
manufacturing, processing and sale of certified seeds of wheat
and other foods grains, participated in this tender which was
accepted by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner issued office
order dated 12.01.2016 upon the respondent for supply of 1500
quintals of wheat seeds variety PBW 550, 2000 quintals of wheat
seeds variety HD 2967 and 4000 quintals of wheat seeds variety
DBW 17. Since certain quantity of the seeds supplied by the
respondent did not pass the quality control test conducted by the
petitioner therefore, 711 quintals of wheat seeds variety DBW 17
and 645 quintals of wheat seeds variety PBW 550 were not lifted
out of the total quantity. As a result, the respondent could not
even supply the minimum required quantity of 90% for which
penalty of Rs. 2,15,064/- was imposed upon the respondent by
the petitioner in accordance with Clause 15 of the NIT Section-II,
Terms and Conditions of the E.O.I. The aforesaid quanity of the
seeds was to be supplied by the respondent by 2 nd week of
November 2016 and thereafter, no seeds were to be accepted
however, despite clear terms of the contract between the parties
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 2 of 35
and the several job orders issued by the petitioner, the respondent
did not keep the stock of the seeds ready within the agreed
delivery time and the same was lying there without being
properly kept and therefore, the remaining quantity of the seeds
was not lifted by the petitioner. Further job orders were not
issued due to implementation of demonetization by the Central
Government as due to the same the farmers/government
departments etc. stopped placing orders for wheat seeds. The
demonetization also had a direct bearing on non-lifting of seeds
by the petitioner along with delay in packing by the respondent
however, as per Clause 6 of the Other Terms and Conditions, the
‘NSC will not be responsible for the losses incurred to the seed
producer due to change in govt. decisions, natural calamities,
which are beyond the control of NSC’ . Timely supply of seeds is
the essence of the contract as also reflected in office orders dated
28.10.2014, 12.01.2016 and various clauses of the contract.
Further as per Clause 23 of Section II, Terms and Conditions of
E.O.I., the price to be paid to the producers was to be decided by
the Regional Area of production which in this case was Lucknow
and therefore, the price being paid to growers in Lucknow was
payable to the respondent and the petitioner vide email dated
27.12.2016 informed the respondent about the price payable.
3. It is further the case of the petitioner that despite the entire
payment being made in accordance with agreed contractual
terms, the respondent raised the dispute and therefore, the matter
was referred by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi to the Delhi
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 3 of 35
International Arbitration Centre and Sh. Nand Kishore Goel
(Retd. ADJ) was appointed as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the
dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the respondent filed its
statement of claim and the petitioner filed its statement of
defence. Thereafter, arbitration proceedings commenced, issues
were framed but the parties did not lead oral evidence and the
matter was decided on the basis of the documents on record. On
11.02.2019, Ld. Sole Arbitrator passed the impugned award
wherein certain claims of the respondent were allowed in its
favour and against the petitioner.
4. It is further the case of the petitioner that the Ld. Arbitrator
passed the impugned award in complete disregard of the
provisions of contract, documents on record, applicable laws,
principles of equity, fair play and nature justice and that there are
prima facie glaring errors in the impugned award. The approach
of the Ld. Sole Arbitrator is perverse and suffers from patent
illegality on the face of it. The impugned award has been passed
without any application of mind, suffers from fundamental and
incurable errors and is in conflict with the public policy of India.
5. Feeling aggrieved from the findings of the Ld. Sole Arbitrator,
the present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the
grounds such as impugned award is bad in law being in conflict
with the public policy of India; impugned award is contrary to the
accepted principles of natural justice; impugned award suffers
from patent and fundamental errors as the same has been passed
without application of mind; Ld. Sole Arbitrator erroneously and
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 4 of 35
arbitrarily without application of mind, allowed the claims of the
respondent for the losses suffered by its on account of non-lifting
of seeds by the petitioner without there being a single
document/evidence on record establishing and/or quantifying the
loss suffered by the respondent; Ld. Arbitrator, arbitrarily and
against the principles of morality and justice, has concluded that
loss of 200 quintals was suffered by the respondent without the
respondent leading any documentary or other evidence in support
thereof but despite the same, the Ld. Arbitrator has allowed the
claims of the respondent and failed to appreciate certain cannons
of law which governs as to the concept of burden of proof and
discharging the onus; the impugned award is against the most
basic fundamental policy of Indian Law as to the damages/losses
which requires that a person claiming damaging/losses has to
actually prove the loss/damage suffered by it by placing relevant
materials on record. In support of its case, the petitioner has
relied upon certain judgments viz Haryana Tourism Corporation
Limited Vs. P.K. Himat Singla & Co., RFA No. 68/2024 passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Murlidhar Chiranjilal Vs.
Harish Chandra Dwarkadas, (1962) 1 SCR 653 passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
6. It is further the case of the petitioner that despite there being no
documentary evidence, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator accepted that a
part of the non lifted seeds were sold and part of it remained
unsold and hence passed an award for Rs. 2,37,600/- for the loss
suffered on account of sale at the reduced price and Rs.
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 5 of 35
11,84,385/- as cost of non lifted seeds that remained unsold. Ld.
Sole Arbitrator erroneously awarded interest from an arbitrary
dated i.e. 08.04.2017 despite the admitted position that payments
were made to the respondent even after 08.04.2017. On these
premise, the instant petition has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner for setting aside of arbitral award dated 11.02.2019
passed by Ld. Sole Arbitrator in the present case.
7. Reply to the present petition has been filed by the respondent
wherein it has been averred that the petitioner never supplied any
QCL test report to the respondent nor produced the same before
the Ld. Arbitrator. Article 15 of the Expression of Interest is not
application in the present case and the same is in the nature of
penalty, therefore, the petitioner could claim compensation for
breach of contract up to the limit of agreed liquidated damages
only on the proof of any loss to it and the deduction of penalty
was illegally made by the petitioner but the refund of the same
has been refused by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator against which the
respondent has already preferred application under Section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which is pending disposal.
The petitioner cannot raise a new ground which had not been
taken before the Ld. Arbitrator. The demonetization policy of the
Government did not affect sowing of the seeds nor it has been
alleged by the petitioner before the Ld. Arbitrator or in the
present application that the wheat production had fallen in that
year due to demonetization. The demonetization policy did not
bar purchase of seeds from the producers. The petitioner cannot
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 6 of 35
fix any date for supply unilaterally when no date for supply is
fixed in the contract, then time cannot be essence of contract.
8. It has been further averred that the claims allowed by the Ld.
Arbitrator are wholly in accordance with the contract, documents
on record and the law applicable in the case. The claim allowed
by the Ld. Arbitrator are based on proper construction of the
contract and are in accordance with the law applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the case. The petitioner did not lift the
contracted quantity resulting in loss of entire stock to the
respondent. The judgments sought to be relied upon by the
petitioner is against the case and claims of the petitioner itself.
Further under the terms of the agreement, the petitioner had to
pay either the APMC rate or the MSP whichever was higher but
the petitioner has not stated anywhere that the rate of APMC paid
by it was higher than the MSP at the relevant time. On these
premises, the respondent has prayed for the dismissal of the
instant petition.
9. I have heard Sh. Vashvardhan and Sh. Gyanendra Shukla, Ld.
Counsels for the petitioner and Sh. Tushar Mahajan, Ld. Counsel
for the respondent. I have also gone through the written
submissions along with citations filed by the Ld. Counsels for the
parties.
10.I have examined the impugned Award dated 11.02.2019 in
question, arbitration proceedings and also given due
consideration to the facts and pleadings of the case, written
submissions along with citations filed by the parties as well
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 7 of 35
submissions put forth by the respective Ld. Counsel for the
parties and the relevant legal position.
11.Ld. counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned award
is against the facts as well as against the law and has been passed
by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator without application of mind and the
award is a non-speaking award. It has been further argued that the
impugned award is based on surmises and conjectures and it has
been passed without considering the documents on record and is
against the public policy. It has been further argued that the
impugned award suffers of various irregularities, violation of
principles of natural justice and against the public policy. On
these premise, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner prayed that the
impugned award be set aside.
12.On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued
that the objections are not maintainable as the award has been
passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator after considering the material
on record and is a reasoned award and it does not suffer from any
infirmity or illegality as alleged by the petitioner. He therefore,
argued that the objections are without any merit and are liable to
be dismissed.
13.Before deciding the validity of the impugned Award, it is relevant
to observe that the scope of inquiry in Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 proceedings is restricted
to consideration whether any one of the grounds mentioned in
Section 34 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
exists for setting aside the Award. The scope of the interference
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 8 of 35
by the court under Section 34 (2) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 has been time and again restricted in
catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Superior Courts and it has
been held that in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, the re-appreciation of the facts,
evidence or interpretation of the terms of contract is not
permissible. What is permissible is, if there is a patent illegality,
apparent error on the face of the record, perversity in the Award
or misconduct by the Ld. Arbitrator.
14.Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reads
as under:-
“34.Application for setting aside arbitral award-(1)Recourse to a
court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application
for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and
sub-section (3).
(2)An arbitral award may be set aside by the court only if-
(a) the party making the application furnishes proof that-
(i) a party was under some incapacity, or
(ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the
parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the
law for the time being in force; or
(iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of
the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was
otherwise unable to present his case; or
(iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or
not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it
contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to
arbitration;
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 9 of 35
Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can
be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the
arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to
arbitration may be set aside; or
(v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure
was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such
agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Part from which
the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in
accordance with this Part; or
(b) the court finds that-
(i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by
arbitration under the law for the time being in force, or
(ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India.
Explanation 1 – For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that an
award is in conflict with the public policy of India, only if,– (i) the
making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption
or was in violation of Section 75 or Section 81; or (ii) it is in
contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law; or (iii) it is
in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice.
Explanation 2.– For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to whether
there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law
shall not entail a review on the merits of the dispute.
(2A) An arbitral award arising out of arbitrations other than
international commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by the
Court, if the Court finds that the award is vitiated by patent illegality
appearing on the face of the award:
Provided that an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of
an erroneous application of the law or by re-appreciation of evidence.
(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three
months have elapsed from the date on which the party making thatOMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 10 of 35
application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been
made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been
disposed of by the arbitral tribunal:
Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented
by sufficient cause from making the application within the said
period of three months it may entertain the application within a
further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.”
15.Normally, the general principles are that Arbitrator is a Judge of
the choice of the parties and his decision, unless there is an error
apparent on the face of the award which makes it unsustainable,
is not to be set aside even if the court as a court of law would
come to a different conclusion on the same facts. The court
cannot reappraise the evidence and it is not open to the court to
sit in appeal over the conclusion of the arbitrator. It is not open to
the court to set aside a finding of fact arrived at by the arbitrator
and only grounds on which the award can be cancelled are those
mentioned in the Arbitration Act. Where the arbitrator assigns
cogent grounds and sufficient reasons and no error of law or
misconduct is cited, the award will not call for interference by the
court in exercise of the power vested in it. Where the arbitrator is
a qualified technical person and expert, who is competent to
make assessment by taking into consideration the technical
aspects of the matter, the court would generally not interfere with
the award passed by the arbitrator.
16.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as Associate
Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49 has
held that the interference with an arbitral award is permissible
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 11 of 35
only when the findings of the arbitrator are arbitrary, capricious
or perverse or when conscience of the Court is shocked or when
illegality is not trivial but goes to the root of the matter. It is held
that once it is found that the arbitrator’s approach is neither
arbitrary nor capricious, no interference is called for on facts. The
arbitrator is ultimately a master of the quantity and quality of
evidence while drawing the arbitral award. Patent illegality must
go to the root of the matter and cannot be of trivial nature.
17.It was further held as under:-
“33. …when a court is applying the ‘public policy’ test to an
arbitration award, it does not act as a court of appeal and
consequently errors of fact cannot be corrected. A possible view by
the arbitrator on facts has necessarily to pass muster as the arbitrator
is the ultimate master of the quantity and quality of evidence to be
relied upon when he delivers his arbitral award…. Once it is found
that the arbitrators approach is not arbitrary or capricious, then he is
the last word on facts..”
18.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as
Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. vs. National
Highways Authority of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 677 has held
that under Section 34 (2A) of the Act, a decision which is
perverse while no longer being a ground for challenge under
“public policy of India”, would certainly amount to a patent
illegality appearing on the face of the award. A finding based on
the documents taken behind the back of the parties by the
arbitrator would also qualify as a decision based on no evidence
inasmuch as such decision is not based on evidence led by the
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 12 of 35
parties and therefore would also have to be characterized as
perverse. It is held that a finding based on no evidence at all or an
award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision
would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of
patent illegality.
19.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also cited with approval
the dictum laid down in P. R. Shah, Shares & Stock Brokers (P)
Ltd Vs. B. H. H. Securities (P) Ltd, [(2012) 1 SCC 594 :
(2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 342)], wherein it has been held as under:-
21. A Court does not sit in appeal over the award of an Arbitral
Tribunal by reassessing or re-appreciating the evidence. An award
can be challenged only under the grounds mentioned in Section 34
(2) of the Act. The Arbitral Tribunal has examined the facts and held
that both the second respondent and the appellant are liable ……
Therefore, in the absence of any ground under Section 34 (2) of the
Act, it is not possible to re-examine the facts to find out whether a
different decision can be arrived at.”
20.It was further held in Associate Builder (supra) as under:-
“…… Construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an
arbitrator to decide unless the arbitrator construes the contract in a
way that it could be said to be something that no fair minded or
reasonable person could do…..”
21.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as Atlanta
Limited Thr. Its Managing Director Vs. Union of India, CIVIL
APPEAL No. 1533 of 2017 decided on 18.01.2022, has held as
under:-
“19. It is also a well-settled principle of law that challenge cannot
be laid to the Award only on the ground that the Arbitrator has drawnOMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 13 of 35
his own conclusion or failed to appreciate the relevant facts. Nor can
the Court substitute its own view on the conclusion of law or facts as
against those drawn by the Arbitrator, as if it is sitting in appeal. This
aspect has been highlighted in State of Rajasthan v. Puri Construction
Co. Ltd. And Another, where it has been observed thus:
“26. The arbitrator is the final arbiter for the dispute between the
parties and it is not open to challenge the award on the ground that
the arbitrator has drawn his own conclusion or has failed to
appreciate the facts. In Sudarsan Trading Co. v. State of Kerala
[Sudarsan Trading Co. v. State of Kerala, (1989) 2 SCC 38] it has
been held by this Court that there is a distinction between disputes
as to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and the disputes as to in
what way that jurisdiction should be exercised. There may be a
conflict as to the power of the arbitrator to grant a particular
remedy. One has to determine the distinction between an error
within the jurisdiction and an error in excess of the jurisdiction.
Court cannot substitute its own evaluation of the conclusion of
law or fact to come to the conclusion that the arbitrator had acted
contrary to the bargain between the parties. Whether a particular
amount was liable to be paid is a decision within the competency
of the arbitrator. By purporting to construe the contract the court
cannot take upon itself the burden of saying that this was contrary
to the contract and as such beyond jurisdiction. If on a view taken
of a contract, the decision of the arbitrator on certain amounts
awarded is a possible view though perhaps not the only correct
view, the award cannot be examined by the court. Where the
reasons have been given by the arbitrator in making the award
the court cannot examine the reasonableness of the reasons.
If the parties have selected their own forum, the deciding forum
must be conceded the power of appraisement of evidence. TheOMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 14 of 35
arbitrator is the sole judge of the quality as well as the quantity of
evidence and it will not be for the court to take upon itself the task
of being a Judge on the evidence before the arbitrator.”
20. As long as the arbitrator has taken a possible view, which
may be a plausible view, simply because a different view from that
taken in the award, is possible based on the same evidence, would also
not be a ground to interfere in the award. In Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v.
Union of India [Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India, (1999) 9
SCC 449] , this Court has held as follows : (SCC p. 475, para 36)
―36. Be it noted that by reason of a long catena of cases, it is
now a well-settled principle of law that reappraisal of evidence
by the court is not permissible and as a matter of fact exercise of
power by the court to reappraise the evidence is unknown to
proceedings under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. In the event
of there being no reasons in the award, the question of
interference of the court would not arise at all. In the event,
however, there are reasons the interference would still be not
available within the jurisdiction of the court unless of course,
there exists a total perversity in the award or the judgment is
based on a wrong proposition of law. In the event however two
views are possible on a question of law as well, the court would
not be justified in interfering with the award.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
22. In a recent ruling in NTPC [NTPC Ltd. v. Deconar Services (P)
Ltd., (2021) 19 SCC 694 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 498] , decided by a
three-Judge Bench of this Court, drawing strength from the decision in
Kwality Mfg. Corpn. [Kwality Mfg. Corpn. v. Central Warehousing
Corpn., (2009) 5 SCC 142 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 406] , it has been held
thus : (NTPC case [NTPC Ltd. v. Deconar Services (P) Ltd., (2021)
19 SCC 694 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 498] , SCC para 13)
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 15 of 35
13. From the above pronouncements, and from a catena of other
judgments of this Court, it is clear that for the objector/appellant
in order to succeed in their challenge against an arbitral award,
they must show that the award of the arbitrator suffered from
perversity or an error of law or that the arbitrator has otherwise
misconducted himself. Merely showing that there is another
reasonable interpretation or possible view on the basis of the
material on the record is insufficient to allow for the interference
by the Court(see State of U.P. v. Allied Constructions [State of
U.P. v. Allied Constructions, (2003) 7 SCC 396] ; Ravindra
Kumar Gupta & Co. v. Union of India [Ravindra Kumar Gupta &
Co. v. Union of India, (2010) 1 SCC 409 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ)
130] and Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
[Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., (2018) 16
SCC 219 : (2019) 1 SCC (Civ) 426] ).
22.It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the Court when called
upon to decide the objection raised by a party against an arbitral
award is limited as expressly indicated in the Act. The Court has
no jurisdiction to sit in appeal and examined the correctness of
award on merit with reference to the material produced before the
Arbitrator. It cannot sit in appeal overviews of the Arbitrator by
re-examining and re-assessing the material. It is equally settled
that approach of the Court has to support the award, if it is
reasonably possible, rather to declare it illegal. It is not
permissible to re-appreciate the evidence or to go into the
questions of quality & quantity of evidence. It two views are
possible, the Court even, if inclined to take different view from
that by the Arbitrator is not entitled to substitute his views over
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 16 of 35
that of Arbitrator but at the same time, it being an award, which
sets out reasons yet this Court can set aside the award on finding
error apparent on the face of the award or if there is an error of
law on the face of the award.
23.Following are the issues framed by Ld. Sole Arbitrator in arbitral
proceedings:-
“1. Whether the claimant is in breach of the contractual terms of
the tender document ? OPR
2. Whether time was the essence of the contract ? OPR
3. Whether the Respondent was within its contractual and/or legal
rights to refuse lifting of 711 quintals of wheat variety DBW 17 and
645 quintals of wheat PBW 550 since they did not pass the SCA and
QCL test ? OPR
4. Whether the Respondent was justified under terms of contract
to levy penalty as regards 71 quintals of wheat variety DBW 17 and
645 quintals of wheat variety PBW 550 since the claimant failed to
supply the minimum required quantity of 90% in accordance with
Clause 15 of the NIT ? OPR5 Whether the Respondent was within its contractual and/or legal
rights as regards non-lifting of certain seeds due to implementation of
demonetization scheme of the government ?OPR
6. Whether the Respondent was within its contractual and/or legal
rights to conduct QCL test as claimed? OPR
7. Whether the claimant is entitled to make claims as per the
prices prevalent in Patna region or as per rate prevailing in their own
production area under the terms of Clause 23 of the Section II, Terms
and Conditions of the E.O.I. the Seed Procurement Policy, 2015 ?
OPP
8. Whether the claimant is entitled to a claim of Rs. 25,84,923.50
(or any part thereof as claimed in Statement of Claim) ? OPP
9. Whether the Claimant is entitled to interest and if so at what
rate, as specified in the Statement of claim? OPPOMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 17 of 35
10. Relief.’
24.Issues no.1, 2 and 5:-
“1. Whether the claimant is in breach of the contractual
terms of the tender document ? OPR
2. Whether time was the essence of the contract ? OPR
5 Whether the Respondent was within its contractual
and/or legal rights as regards non-lifting of certain seeds due
to implementation of demonetization scheme of the
government ?OPR
25.Relevant Clauses of the agreement in this regard are is reproduced
as under:-
“4. DELIVERY OF SEEDS
The delivery period shall be as prescribed in the E.O.I.s. Only
those parties should participates in E.O.I. who are in a position
to stick to the delivery prescribed. Their attention is also
invited to clause to liquidated damages which shall be binding
in Section -II”
“3. SIGNING OF AGREEMENT & SECURITY
DEPOSIT
……. The successful Seed Organizer/producer i.e. Tenderer shall
be required to organize seed production programme during Rabi
2015-16 season to deliver the contracted quantity to the NSC
within schedule time
………”
“33. DEFAULT & RISK PURCHASE
Should the Tenderer/Organizer fail to have the stock ready for
delivery as aforesaid, or should the Tenderer/Organizer in any
manner or otherwise fail to perform the contract or should it failOMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 18 of 35
to complete the production in time according to the
specifications or should it have winding up order made against it
or make or enter into any arrangement for composition with its
creditor or suspend payments (or being a company should enter
into liquidation either compulsory or voluntary) the Corporation
shall have power under the hand of MD/CMD to declare the
contract at the end of at the risk and cost of the supplier in every
way……”
26.The Letter dated 28.10.2014 and Office Production order dated
12.01.2016 clearly stipulate as follows:-
“Timely supply of quality seed is the essence of the contract”
27.Ld. Sole Arbitrator while appreciating the aforesaid clauses, has
held that timely supply of wheat seeds by the respondent to the
petitioner was the essence of the contract. However, at the same
time, he has dealt with the question whether the petitioner had
given any time limit to the respondent to supply the wheat seeds
and while dealing with the same, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator observed
that the petitioner has not filed any document on record to even
show that the respondent had to supply the wheat seed to the
petitioner by the second week of November 2016. Following are
the excerpts of findings of Ld. Sole Arbitrator in this regard:-
“In the letter of acceptance dated 12.01.2016 (Annexure-4 and also
annexure R-3) the respondent has not provided or specified any date
by which the claimant was bound to supply the wheat seeds to the
respondent. Vide job orders (now marked as Mark D1 to D6 and D8
to D11) the respondent had requested the New Laxmi Transport
Agency, Anishbad, Patna to lift the quantity of wheat seedsOMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 19 of 35
mentioned therein from Kashi Agro, Kashipur and supply the same
to the parties mentioned therein on the dates which are between
02.11.2016 to 18.11.2016. However copies of the same are not
shown to also have been sent to the claimant. When the respondent
had not specified any time limit to the claimant to supply the wheat
seeds nor did it send the copies of the job sheets to the claimant, it
does not lie in the mouth of the respondent to say that the claimant
had not supplied the wheat seeds within time. Hence despite the time
being essence of contract for timely supply of the wheat seeds to the
respondent by the claimant, the respondent is held not entitled to
avail the plea in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The respondent had admitted that PBW 550 variety of seeds
were not lifted by the respondent. Therefore, I do not want to discuss
letters (copies Annexure 6, 7 & 10 wherein the claimant has
requested the respondent to lift 564.40 quintals seeds of PBW 550
variety). However, the case of the respondent is that no further lifting
of seeds was done and no job order issued because of the claimant’s
on fault in delaying the packing and supplying of seeds to NSC. In
my opinion, the respondent has taken this lame and unstandable plea
in order to hide its own fault. Before attributing any fault to the
claimant the respondent but know that it had not placed any further
job orders to the claimant and hence the question of packing or no-
packing of seeds by the claimant was of no consequences so far as
the respondent is concerned.”
28.Perusal of the impugned award shows that no fault, either factual
or legal can be found to be the aforesaid conclusion drawn by the
Ld. Sole Arbitrator. The view/interpretation of the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator is neither impossible nor perverse but is plausible view
and cannot be set aside.
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 20 of 35
29.Ld. Sole Arbitrator has also dealt with the another issue for not
issuing further job orders by the petitioner to the respondent on
account of implementation of demonetization by the Central
Government and while dealing with the same, Ld. Sole Arbitrator
observed that the petitioner has not filed any authentic document
to prove that demonetization by the Central Government had
infact affected the work of any government agency and had the
adverse effect on their functioning. Following are the excerpts of
findings of Ld. Sole Arbitrator in this regard:-
“……… If demonetization has caused any such effect on the
working of respondent the respondent should have at least informed
the complainant and postponed the delivery of wheat seeds.
However, the respondent was not entitled to act unilaterally and
reject the claim of the claimant without even giving an opportunity
of being heard to the claimant. Therefore, in my view this argument
raised on behalf of the respondent is devoid any merit and force and
is accordingly rejected. The claimant did not breach any of the terms
and conditions of the contract therefore I hold that the complainant is
entitled to recover Rs. 2,37,600/- and Rs. 11,84,385/- from the
respondent for the loss suffered by the complainant for non-lifting of
the wheat seeds by the respondent”.
30.It can be seen from the above findings that the Ld. Sole Arbitrator
has considered all the objections and returned the findings
pursuant to the formula provided for determining the losses
suffered by the respondent for non-lifting of the wheat seeds by
the petitioner. There is nothing ex facie perverse about the above
findings of the Ld. Sole Arbitrator and it cannot be said that the
view taken by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator is a plausible view, so as to
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 21 of 35
warrants interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. The appreciation of the evidence and
construction of the documents is within the jurisdiction of Arbitral
Tribunal.
31.Issues no.3, 4 and 6:-
3. Whether the Respondent was within its contractual
and/or legal rights to refuse lifting of 711 quintals of wheat
variety DBW 17 and 645 quintals of wheat PBW 550 since
they did not pass the SCA and QCL test ? OPR
4. Whether the Respondent was justified under terms of
contract to levy penalty as regards 71 quintals of wheat
variety DBW 17 and 645 quintals of wheat variety PBW
550 since the claimant failed to supply the minimum
required quantity of 90% in accordance with Clause 15 of
the NIT ? OPR
6. Whether the Respondent was within its contractual
and/or legal rights to conduct QCL test as claimed? OPR
32.As per the record, the petitioner had approved the custom
production rate and quantity of wheat (1/wheat/PBW 550-1000
quintals, 2 wheat/DW-17-1000 quintals, 3, wheat/HD-2967 100
quintals) vide letter dated 28.10.2014. The same were got tested
from State Government Institution laboratory i.e. the State Seed
Certification Agency before lifting the same from the respondent.
However, the petitioner still took samples of 711 quintals of
DW-17 wheat seeds and 645 quintals of PBW-550 wheat seeds
and got them tested in NSC (QCL-N) where they failed the test
and the petitioner rejected the said quantity of wheat seeds. The
petitioner charges a sum of 2,15,064/- as penalty as per the
agreement and recovered the same from the bills of the respondent
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 22 of 35
finally on 27.05.2016 as the remaining quantity to be supplied by
the respondent to the petitioner was less than 90% of the
contracted weight.
33.Relevant Clause of the Agreement in this regard is reproduced as
under:-
“SECTION -II
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE TENDER
XXXX
15. Failure to deliver less than 90% of approved quantity
shall entitle NSC to impose penalty @ 10% of the value of the
shortfall in supply at the rate agreed to. The penalty for short
supply will remain at 10% of the value of the quantity not
supplied against 90% benchmark. In case, the organizer fails to
deliver any quantity or does not supply any quantity, NSC
reserves the right to forfeit the security amount and initiate
proceedings against the Tenderer/Organizer as per law”.
34.It was the case of the respondent before the Ld. Sole Arbitrator
that since the wheat seeds had already been got tested in the State
Seed Certification Agency, the further examination by the
petitioner from its own lab i.e. NSC (QCL-N) was not justified as
the same was not done in the presence of the respondent and also
the results were not made available to the respondent and as such
the levying of the penalty of Rs. 2,15,064/- by the petitioner and
the recovery of the same from the respondent was illegal.
35.Relevant Clause of the Agreement in this regard is reproduced as
under:-
“SECTION -II
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE TENDEROMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 23 of 35
XXXX
14. NSC will draw representative samples of the
final/cleaned/graded seeds lots offered by the tenderer and will
get analyzed in NSC’s, Quality Control Laboratory (QCL-N) or
any other laboratory identified by NSC. Only the lots cleared by
both the SCA and NSC will be finally accepted by NSC. NSC
will draw samples for 25% more quantity than the production
order.”
36.It is apparent from the above clause that clearance of the wheat
seeds from NSC (QCL), apart from the State Laboratory, was also
mandatory.
37.While deciding these issues, Ld. Sole Arbitrator observed as
under:-
“…….The execution of EOI document (copy Annexure-5 and also
R-1) is not in dispute. There is any reason to believe that the parties
had signed the said agreement out of their freewill and consent. Hence
the respondent did not use any element of force or coercion and the
claimant voluntarily signed the agreement. The terms of the agreement
are unambiguous, explicit, specific and written in plain language
therefore the parties are bound by the terms and conditions stipulated
therein. In view of the stipulation contained in Clause 14, Section II of
the tendered document the respondent had legally got the above
quantity of seeds tested from its quality control laboratory (QCL-N)
and in view of Clause 15, Section II of the tendered document to levy
penalty for short production and supply.
So far as non-supply of QCL-N’s report to the claimant is
concerned reliance is placed on letter dated 30.11.2016 retained by the
claimant to the respondent. Its relevant portion reads as under:-
“This is to inform you that as per your communication,
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 24 of 35
samples from Lot No. Apr 16-33-97, 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 46, 47, 54 of
PBW 550 have not been approved, as such the seed of that lot cannot
be supplied to you, thought the seed had already been tested and
approved by the State Lab.
Since the supply of seed could not be made due to failure of
the lot at your end and there is no other way to procure and supply
such quantity, the weight of the said lot i.e. 1284 Qtls. Be reduced
from the contracted quantity and the same be considered to be 564.80
Qtls. only.
This letter clearly proves that the respondent had informed the
claimant regarding testing of above quantity of seeds in QCL (N) and
rejection thereof. It is apparent that when receiving the information
regarding rejection of the above quantity of seeds the claimant did not
raise any objection with respect to non-supply of the copy of QCL(N)
rest report. Accordingly, the claimant is now not entitled to raise this
plea at a belated stage in the present claim. Hence I hold that the claim
of the claimant for the about of Rs. 2,15,064/- was rightly and
correctly rejected by the respondent.”
38.The Law is well settled that the Ld. Sole Arbitrator is the Sole
Judge of quality and quantity of evidence. The merit based review
as sought by the petitioner, has been discouraged over by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble High Courts in
catena of judgments. In the present case, it cannot be said that the
view taken by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator is not a plausible view to
take in the present facts and circumstances. In these circumstances,
this Court concludes that challenge to the award is beyond the
scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
39.Issue no.7:-
7. Whether the claimant is entitled to make claims as per
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 25 of 35
the prices prevalent in Patna region or as per rate prevailing
in their own production area under the terms of Clause 23 of
the Section II, Terms and Conditions of the E.O.I. the Seed
Procurement Policy, 2015 ? OPP
40.Relevant Clause of the Agreement in this regard is reproduced as
under:-
“SECTION -II
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE TENDER
XXXX
“23. PROCUREMENT POLICY
“The procurement policy to be paid to grower shall be decided
based on NSC new procurement policy dated 21.10.2015 i.e.
Average of Highest APMC (seed production area) from 01st may
to 31st May……”
41.It is apparent from the said clause that the same was binding upon
the parties. Ld. Sole Arbitrator while deciding this issue, has
considered this clause and following are the excerpts of findings
of Ld. Sole Arbitrator on this issue:-
“In my considered in the fact and circumstances of the case and the
documents filed on record, the said clause is not applicable to the
claimant’s case. Copy of no decision taken under this clause by the
respondent has filed on the record. Accordingly to the respondent in
terms of clause 23 (supra) the Seed Procurement Policy 2015 is
applicable for procurement prices to be paid to the organizer (claimant
herein). Copy of NSC Procurement Policy 2015 has been filed as
Annexure R-2. Item no.1 of the terms and conditions of the said policy
deals with policy for computation of PP in respect of cereals (what is a
cereal). It reads as under:-
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 26 of 35
Crop Group Policy of computation of PP
1 Cereals Average of a) Newer varieties 20%
highest APMC Incentive including production
rate+Incentive subsidy if applicable+Rs.50/-
(As per specific premium for new varieties.
price period in b) Older varieties 20%
Annexure I) IncentiveCopy of Annexure-I has not been filed along with the copy of policy.
Therefore what has been prescribed in Annexure-I is someone’s
guess work. Policy for in procurement of PP of newer verities is 20%
incentive including production subsidy if applicable+Rs.50/-
premium. Here also no such calculation sheet has been filed on the
record. Item no.18 of 2015 policy provides that “RM may decide the
procurement price area officewise or statewise of regionwise”.
Respondent has not produced any documentary evidence to prove
that in exercise of the power conferred by Item No.18 the Regional
Manager had decided any such price. Item no.1 provides that ‘if
average of highest of APMC rates is less than MSP, in such case the
procurement price shall be MSP+production incentive”. By virtue of
Item no.1 duty was cast on the RM to ascertain the APMC rates. No
such list of rates has been filed. Clause 23 also provides that “if
average of highest of APMC rates is less that MSP, in such case the
procurement price shall be MSP+production incentive”. Therefore
the contention raised on behalf of the claimant that while deducting
an amount of Rs.4,48,396.90 paisa by applying Seed Production
Area Rule the respondent committed an illegality has great force and
has to be upheld. Hence it is held that the respondent is liable to pay
Rs. 4,48,396.90 paisa to the claimant. The issue is decided
accordingly in favour of the claimant”.
42.The above findings of the Ld. Sole Arbitrator show that the Ld.
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 27 of 35
Sole Arbitrator has dealt extensively with the objection raised by
the petitioner and the above findings rendered by the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator cannot be interfered in these proceedings as the
appreciation of evidence and construction of documents was
within the jurisdiction of the arbitration.
43.While deciding issues no.1, 2, 5 and 7, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has
held that the respondent is entitled to recover Rs. 2,37,600/-, Rs.
11,84,385/- and Rs. 4,48,396.9 paisa total of which comes to
Rs.18,70,381.9 paisa. Further while deciding issue 9, the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator has granted interest @ 18% per annum from
08.04.2017 till the date of recovery of the amount from the
petitioner.
44.Perusal of the impugned award shows that while deciding issues
no.3, 4 and 6, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has observed that the claim
of the respondent for Rs. 2,15,064/- was rightly and correctly
rejected by the petitioner. Further while deciding issue no.7, the
Ld. Sole Arbitrator has held that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.
4,48,396.9 paisa to the respondent while observing that while
deducting the said amount by the petitioner by applying Seed
Production Area Rule, the petitioner has committed an illegality.
However, in issue no.8, besides mentioning Rs. 2,37,600/-+
Rs.11,84,385/-, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has wrongly mentioned the
amount of Rs.2,15,064/- (which was rejected by the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator while deciding issues no. 3, 4 and 6) instead of
mentioning the amount of Rs.4,48,396.9 (which was allowed by
the Ld. Sole Arbitrator while deciding issue no.7). This appears to
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 28 of 35
be clerical, computational or typographical errors which is
apparent on the face of the arbitral record.
45.The question before the court is that whether the court can modify
the arbitral award to that extent in a petition under Section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or not.
46.In this regard, the court finds support from the judgment passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Civil Appellate Jurisdiction in
a case titled as Gayatri Balasamy Vs. M/s ISG Novasoft
Technologies Ltd., Civil Appeal S.L.P. (C) Nos. 15336-15337 of
2021 decided on 30.04.2025 wherein it has been held in Para 85 as
under:-
85. Accordingly, the questions of law referred to by Gayatri Balasamy
(supra) are answered by stating that the Court has a limited power
under Sections 34 and 37 of the 1996 Act to modify the arbitral award.
This limited power may be exercised under the following
circumstances:
I. when the award is severable, by severing the “invalid” portion
from the “valid” portion of the award, as held in Part II of our
Analysis.
II. by correcting any clerical, computational or typographical
errors which appear erroneous on the face of the record, as held in Part
IV and V of our Analysis;
III. post award interest may be modified in some circumstances as
held in Part IX of our Analysis; and/or
IV. Article 142 of the Constitution applies, albeit, the power must
be exercised with great care and caution and within the limits of the
constitutional power as outlined in Part XII of our Analysis.
47.In the present case, as per the findings of the Ld. Sole Arbitrator in
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 29 of 35
the Award, Ld. Sole Arbitrator has allowed the claims for
Rs.4,48,396.9 + Rs.2,37,600/- + Rs.11,84,385/- totalling to
Rs.18,70,381.9 paisa in favour of the respondent and against the
petitioner. However, in issue no.8, besides mentioning Rs.
2,37,600/-+ Rs.11,84,385/-, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has wrongly
mentioned the amount of Rs.2,15,064/- (which was rejected by the
Ld. Sole Arbitrator while deciding issues no. 3, 4 and 6) instead of
mentioning the amount of Rs.4,48,396.9 (which was allowed by
the Ld. Sole Arbitrator while deciding issue no.7). The same is
clerical, computational or typographical errors and an inadvertent
mistake in the impugned award dated 11.02.2019. Accordingly, in
view of the case law discussed above, the impugned award dated
11.02.2019 is modify to the extent that the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has
allowed the claims in favour of the respondent for Rs.18,70,381.9
paisa instead of Rs. 16,37,049/- as inadvertently calculated.
48.As regards the issue of interest, as observed above, the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator has allowed claim of the respondent for Rs.18,70,381.9
paisa (wrongly mentioned as Rs.16,37,049/- as stated above) with
interest @ 18% per annum from 08.04.2017 till the date of
recovery in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.
49.It is the case of the petitioner that granting of such exorbitant
interest without any reasoning, is an illegality on the part of Ld.
Arbitrator and therefore, requires interference by this court. On
the other hand, it is the case of the respondent that the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator has discretion to award interest at such rate as he may
deem to be reasonable and the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has granted the
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 30 of 35
interest while discussing the relevant provisions in this regard.
50.As per Section 31 (7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator is competent to award interest and
further in terms of Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978, the Ld.
Sole Arbitrator is competent to award interest at the rates
prevailing in the banking transaction. Further the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator has observed that Section 16 of 2006 Act is a special
provision whereas Section 31 (7) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 is a general provision and does not
exclusively deal with cases of Small Scale Industries and thus,
Section 16 of the 2006 Act has to prevail upon Section 31(7) of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In a case titled as
MSK Projects (I) (JV) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr, 2011
(8) JT 37 (SC), it has been held that the Arbitrator is competent to
award interest for the period commencing with the date of award
or the date of decree or date of realization, whichever is earlier.
While the amount of interest is a matter of substantive law, the
grant of interest for the part award period is a matter of
procedure. Further the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in a case
between the same parties titled as M/s Wapcos Limited Vs M/s C
& C Energy Private Limited, FAO (COMM) 53/2021 dated
20.10.2022 has held that “Insofar as the award of interest is concerned,
it is now well settled that the Arbitral Tribunal has wide discretion in
awarding interest (See: Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation
Limited (PUNSUP) and Anr. Vs. Ganpati Rice Mills, SLP (C)
36655 of 2016, decided on 20.10.2021″. In the said case, the
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 31 of 35
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has observed that “In the present case,
Wapcos had also claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum and
therefore, it is not open for Wapcos now to contend that the said rate is
exorbitant and onerous and the Hon’ble High Court also finds no fault with
the learned Commercial Court in declining to interfere with the impugned
award”. In the present case, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has exercised
the discretion by giving reasons for awarding interest @ 18% per
annum and the same seems to be reasonable in this case and
therefore, the reasoning given by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator while
awarding the interest, cannot be said to be unreasonable or
perverse. In view of the same, the court does not find any
illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned award with respect to
the interest so awarded by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator.
51.Perusal of the award reflects that Ld. Sole Arbitrator has taken
into consideration the dispute arose between the parties and the
grounds raised by the petitioner to challenge the award, are
factual in nature which have been already considered and
adjudicated in the impugned award. It is outside the scope of
Section 34 of the Act to re-appreciate the entire evidence and
come to conclusion because such an approach would defeat the
purpose of arbitration proceedings. It has been consistently held
that when a court is applying the public policy test to an
arbitration award, it does not act as a court of appeal and
consequently, errors of facts cannot be corrected. A possible view
by the arbitrator on facts has necessarily to pass muster as the
arbitrator is the ultimate master of the quality and quantity of
evidence to be relied upon when he delivers his arbitral award.
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 32 of 35
Thus, an award based on little evidence or no evidence which
does not measure up in quality to a trained legal mind would not
be held to be invalid on this score. Once, it is found that the
arbitrator’s approach is not arbitrary or capricious, then it is the
last word on facts.
52.A bare perusal of the arbitral award shows that Ld. Sole
Arbitrator has examined all the relevant aspects of the contract,
the correspondences made by the parties, the terms of the
contract and the conduct of the parties. Ld. Sole Arbitrator has
remained inside the parameters of the contract and construed the
provisions of the contract. Ld. Sole Arbitrator while deciding the
issues has operated within the four corners of the contract and has
not travelled beyond it. Ld. Sole Arbitrator has not decided the
issue contrary to the terms of the contract, so it cannot be said
that Ld. Sole Arbitrator misconducted himself or the
interpretation given by him is not reasonable. The petitioner has
failed to establish that Ld. Sole Arbitrator has travelled beyond
the terms of the contract.
53.Having examined the various contentions of the petitioner on the
touchstone of the parameters of interference as explicitly laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in several
judgments referred to above, I am of the view that the impugned
Award does not call for any interference. This Court cannot re-
appreciate evidence or interpret the Clauses of the Agreement
which the petitioner is calling upon the Court to do. The
contentions of the petitioner are thus, rejected having no merits.
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 33 of 35
The court is of the view that the arbitration award being a
reasoned one and does not suffer from any infirmity or error
apparent on the face of the record. It is not for this Court to sit in
appraisal of the evidence led before the Ld. Sole Arbitrator and
this Court will not open itself to the task of being a judge on the
evidence placed before the Ld. Sole Arbitrator which was subject
matter of dispute. In the present case, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has
deliberated on the issues under reference which were within his
competency. There are no allegations against the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator of misconduct nor of having misconducted the
proceedings which have either been specifically alleged by the
petitioner or established. The Ld. Sole Arbitrator has duly
explained the reasons for arriving at his decisions. There is
nothing to indicate that the award violates Section 28 (3) of the
Act or that, it is in conflict with the basic notions of justice and
the fair play and fundamental policy of Indian law or in
contravention of the terms of the agreement or that it lacks
reasoning as pleaded in the petition.
54.Taking into consideration the various dates and events on record,
the court is of the considered opinion that the conclusion drawn
by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator is based on sound reasons and the Ld.
Sole Arbitrator has passed the award after considering the facts,
evidence and material on record. In the impugned award, the Ld.
Sole Arbitrator has given logical reasoning in reaching the just
conclusion of the case. The award is well reasoned as per the
terms and conditions of the agreement. There is nothing on
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 34 of 35
record to show that impugned award is against the terms of the
agreement and against the public policy. Also, there is no patent
illegality in the award. The award is a well reasoned award, based
on evidence and mathematical calculations and not only a
possible but a plausible view.
55.In view of the above discussions, the present objections petition
under Section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
is dismissed. No order as to cost.
56.File be consigned to record room. Digitally
signed by
ANURAG SAIN
ANURAG
(Announced in the Open Court SAIN
Date:
2025.05.21
16:56:19
today on 21.05.2025) +0530
(Anurag Sain)
District Judge (Commercial Court-01),
Patiala House Courts Complex, New Delhi
OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 35 of 35
OMP (COMM.) 90/19
NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD Vs. KASHIPUR AGRO
INDUSTRIES PVT LTD
21.05.2025
Present:- None.
Earlier Sh. Gyanendra Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner
and Sh. Tushar Mahajan, Ld. Counsel for the respondent have appeared
through video conferencing and addressed arguments on clarifications.
Vide separate judgment announced in the open court today,
the present objections petition under Section 34 of The Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be
Digitally signed
by ANURAG
consigned to record room. ANURAG SAIN
SAIN Date:
2025.05.21
16:56:29 +0530(Anurag Sain)
District Judge (Commercial Court-01),
Patiala House Courts Complex,
New Delhi/21.05.2025OMP (COMM) 90/19 Page 36 of 35
[ad_1]
Source link