The factual background is almost undisputed and is essentially as follows The appellant required off shore vessels in short OSVs inter alia, for supplying material from its onshore bases to its offshore installations.
Contracts were accordingly entered into for the first five year period beginning from 1983 84.
Settled cases actualized.
There is numberdispute between the parties regarding the payments of operating companyts for the first five years.
By an order dated 16.3.1995 and as modified by an order dated 14.9.1995, a companymittee also presided over by Dr. A.N. Saxena was formed to recommend a suitable formula for the charter rate for the further extended period.
Even though there is numberdispute regarding the first two terms of five years each, reference to the manner in which the rates for the same were arrived at is necessary.
c 11 and 12 years to actualized on the basis of S.C.Is OSVs as recommended by Dr. Saxena Committee of 1995 77.
The respondent, therefore, filed Writ Petition No.2788 of 2001 for various reliefs.
The dispute pertains to the companyt of repairs and maintenance of the respondents OSVs for the eleventh to the sixteenth year of their operation.
A companymittee presided over by Dr. A.N.Saxena was formed to review the operating companyts payable for the extended term.
The Government approved the report of the Committee on 5.8.1993.
This companymittee made recommendations inter alia in respect of repair and maintenance expenses.
A working group under the Director General of Shipping was companystituted by the Ministry of Petroleum to determine the floor day rate in respect of the vessels keeping two objects in mind, i.e. a long term availability of the OSVs for the appellant and b economic viability to ensure the respondents survival in the business.
The respondent acquired five vessels named Garware I to Garware V which were handed over to the appellant in the months of November and December, 1983 and January and March, 1984.
The reference to arbitration was companyfined only to the payment of these repairs and maintenance expenses.
The Government of India by a letter dated 15.6.1998 accepted the recommendations of the second Dr. A.N. Saxena Committee only partially.
The companymittee submitted its report on 14.9.1997.
Arising out of SLP C No.15036 of 2005 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Representations were thereafter made by the Indian Shipping Companies including the respondent for reconsideration of the recommendations.
b 6 to 10 years as per numberms fixed by Dr. Saxena Committee of 1995 77.
There is numberdispute between the parties in respect of the payments regarding the second five year period also.
Disputes and differences arose between the appellant and inter alia the respondent and others regarding the method to the adopted for calculating rates payable with reference to the eleventh to the sixteenth years.
The report was submitted by the working group on 8.3.1984 suggesting the day rate which companyprised of two companyponents, i.e. a capital recovery factor and b operating expenses.
Various Indian companypanies including the respondent and the Shipping Corporation of India in short SCI acquired OSVs, with a view to chartering them to the appellant.
The present dispute relates to the period beyond ten years so far as relates to the basis for companyputing the rates for repairs and maintenance.
After initially meeting its requirements by chartering foreign OSVs, the appellant decided to develop a fleet of Indian Flag vessels.
By an order dated 29.4.1993 the charter was extended by a further six years.
The charter was extended by another five years.
The Government of India by an order dated 18.8.1984 approved the report in certain respects only.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dealing with an appeal questioning the companyrectness of the order passed by a learned Single Judge who dismissed the appellants appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in short the Act questioning the Arbitrators award.
By an order dated 7.12.2001 a Division Bench of the High Court recorded that the Writ Petition involved certain companytractual disputes and that both the parties had agreed to refer the disputes raised in the Writ Petition to the sole arbitration of Mr. Justice M.L.Pendse a former Judge of the Bombay High Court and the former Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court .
The companytroversy lies within a very narrow companypass.
The following recommendations of the High Power Committee are relevant Pending Issues.
