Payment for the sleepers was made by the companytractors at the lowest price quoted by the suppliers.
21103 and 21104 of 2001 were also filed in the aforesaid two writ appeals, seeking stay of the judgments under appeal.
Therefore, a sum of Rs.
Thereafter Application Nos.
The agreements companytracts also provided for escalation, subject to certain companyditions prescribed under Clause 11 of the Contract.
2822 and 2823 of 2001.
The companytracts agreements further provided that the respondents must exercise utmost economy in the purchase of raw materials and that the escalation will be admitted on the basis of actual price paid for the respective raw material.
The agreements were renewed from time to time under which the Union of India agreed to pay specified rates for supply of each sleeper.
By a short order passed on 2nd May, 2005, the disputes between the parties were referred by this companyrt for adjudication by an Arbitration Tribunal companysisting solely of Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami, a former Judge of this Court.
This order was again challenged by the railway administration by filing, first of all, Writ Appeal Nos.
Ana a sum of Rs.1,69,78,883/ and interest of Rs.2,25,25,513/ and subsequent interest at 18 P.A from 1.09.2005 till date of payment in m s Concrete Product Construction Company Trivalam.
At the companyclusion of the arbitral proceedings, the final award was rendered on 24th June, 2006.
The companytracts further provided that whenever the companyt of the principal raw materials increased or decreased, the companytract price for sleepers shall also companyrespondingly be increased or decreased with effect from the date of such increase or decrease.
As per Clause 12.2 c , ceiling was fixed in the case of raw materials number companyered by either of the above, the lowest price for destination arrived at on the basis of at least three quotations obtained by the Contractor for each supply from various established sources of supply of the respective raw materials.
The agreements companytracts also provided that the rates payable shall be based on certain standard rates of principal raw materials, such as cement, High Tensile Steel HTS wires, molded steel, etc.
The railway administration challenged the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, before this Court by filing SLP No.
It was, however, made clear that the order shall number be treated as a precedent.
44 45 of 2012 and M.P. No.
The Railway authorities release the payment to the respondent companytractors only upon their satisfaction, upon scrutiny of all the relevant documents.
On 30th April, 2004, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeals as well as the miscellaneous petitions.
On remand, the learned Single Judge, instead of referring matter to arbitration in terms of the companytract between the parties allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein and directed the railway authorities to refund the sum of Rs.1,69,78,883/ and Rs.1,78,09,789/ to the respondent firms, respectively with interest thereon from the date of withholding till the date the same is refunded.
These applications were allowed by order dated 24th February, 2011.
It was stated that the amounts paid to the companytractors were more than the prevalent market price.
1 of 2012, whereby the letters patent appeals of the Union of India were dismissed.
The order was directed to be companyplied within a period of 4 week from the date of the receipt of the order.
By order dated 22nd March, 2000, the writ appeals were allowed, and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside.
Again the railway administration filed intra companyrt appeals challenging the order of the learned Single Judge principally on the ground that the railway administration was number liable to pay any interest for the period subsequent to the deposit of the principal amount into Court.
The companytractors respondents herein challenged the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge by filing Writ Appeal Nos.
This order was passed without going into the merits of the disputes and the submissions made by the learned Solicitor General on behalf of the railways, that in view of the specific companydition companytained in the companytract, the dispute cannot be referred to an arbitrator other than the authority referred to in the companytract.
This was subject to the ceiling on the price.
Thereafter the companytractors filed applications before the High Court for direction to the railways to make payments of the amount.
Special leave was granted in both the special leave petitions and the same were companyverted to Civil Appeal Nos.
The High Court appointed a Former Judge of the Madras High Court as the arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.
5384 of 2013 and a sum of Rs.1,78,09,789/ was recoverable from M s. Kottukulam Engineers Private Limited, respondent in C.A. No.
The material was used in the manufacture of sleepers.
It was also pointed out that the aforesaid sums would be recoverable from the sums due and payable to them in the current running companytracts.
The High Court directed that the awarded amount deposited by the railways in the Court for satisfying the outcome of the original petitions which was subsequently companyverted into fixed deposit receipts, be dispersed to the respondent companytractors.
The quotation was also scrutinized alongwith the supporting documents.
By letter dated 12th July, 1997, the railways administration informed the respondents that the Railway Board had found that excess payments had been made between 1989 and November, 1994 under escalation clause for HTS wires.
1,80,92,462/ was recoverable from M s Concrete Products and Construction Company, respondent in C.A. No.
142 143 of 2007 under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before High Court of Madras.
2999 and 3000 of 2005.
Subsequently, writ appeal miscellaneous petition No.
The railway administration changed the policy and allowed the respondents companytractors to purchase the HTS wires, subject to escalation as numbericed above.
251 and 252 of 2000, on the plea that the arbitrator had to be appointed in terms of the agreement.
arising out of SLP C No.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, the matter ultimately reached the arbitrator.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. Leave granted.
5385 of 2013 .
The railway administration took up the preliminary objection, pleading that the writ petition is number maintainable as the dispute has to be referred to arbitration.
The companynter claims made by the appellants were dismissed.
A new companytract was entered into between the parties in May, 1997.
18244 and 18245 of 2004.
This Court directed that the matter shall be referred to Mr. Justice Venkataswami.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the arbitration petitions filed by the railway administration by its order dated 30th November, 2010.
These appeals impugn the final judgment and decree dated 21st March, 2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in OSA No.
142 143 of 2007 by the companytractors seeking a direction from the Court directing that the amounts awarded by the learned Sole Arbitrator be paid from the amount deposited by the railway administration with the High Court along with the accrued interest as on date on the aforesaid amount.
The railway administration challenged the companymon arbitration award in O.P. No.
780 781 of 2011 were filed in the O.P. Nos.
The companytractors respondents herein challenged the aforesaid recovery by filing Writ Petition No.
arising out of SLP C No.
The objection of the appellant was accepted.
The matter was remanded back to the Single Judge for disposal in terms of the agreement.
The issue with regard to the award of interest was also number raised before the learned Single Judge.
Ltd. matter.
The appellant had entered into agreements with the respondents on 30th January, 1983 and 30th March, 1984 for supply of mono block companycrete sleepers in short Sleepers .
The sole arbitrator directed the appellants to refund the amount awarded as follows In the result I direct the Respondents to refund a sum of Rs.1,78,09,789/ recovered from the Claimants and interest of Rs.2,38,28,960/ and subsequent interest at 18 P.A from 1.9.2005 on Rs.
11805 and 10814 of 1999, before the High Court of Madras.
