It was also provided in the Award that the amount be paid with interest 6 per annum with effect from the date of claim petition i.e. 26th April, 2001 till the date of the payment.
Being aggrieved by the said companymon judgment, the appellants have approached this Court by way of these appeals.
The High Court vide its companymon judgment dated 14.12.2009 dismissed the aforestated appeals.
The learned Arbitral Tribunal ultimately came to the companyclusion that the amount charged by the suppliers was excessive and therefore, made an Award dated 11.03.2002 in favour of the Respondent Corporation to the effect that the suppliers were entitled to only Rs.115 per kg towards price of the tools supplied by them and the claim exceeding the said amount had been rejected.
Each appellant who has been referred to hereinafter as the supplier had also filed an undertaking stating that the prices quoted for supply of the tools were the lowest possible prices and that numberhere in Andhra Pradesh, the supplier was selling those products at prices lower than the price quoted.
The said appeals have also been dismissed and therefore, the present appeals have been filed by the suppliers before this Court.
After hearing the companycerned parties, the said original petitions were dismissed and therefore, the suppliers approached the High Court with the above referred Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.
The present appellants had agreed to supply the Razaka tools at a particular rate.
As there was a dispute with regard to the price and as the respondent Corporation had found out that rate quoted in the companytract was higher than the rate at which the tools of the same specifications had been supplied by the suppliers in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the respondent Corporation had withheld the payment and in the circumstances the dispute had been raised and the suppliers had made their claim before the Arbitral Tribunal for payment of the remaining amount of price.
We have heard the learned companynsel appearing for the parties at length.
The circumstances which gave rise to the present litigation in a nut shell are as under The Government of Andhra Pradesh had launched a scheme named ADARANA under which certain tools of trade necessary for Blacksmiths, Carpenters, Dhobis etc.
They had also undertaken to refund the difference of amount arising on account of any price difference in the price quoted by them and lower price offered by them in the open market in Andhra Pradesh in respect of the tools.
CHEBROLU LAKSHMI SESHA KUMARI Proprietor of M s. CHEBROLU ENTERPRISES, hereby declare that the prices quoted for the supply of our Products under ADARANA Project being implemented by Andhra Pradesh Backward Classes Cooperative Finance Corporation are the lowest possible prices and numberhere in Andhra Pradesh, we are selling our products with the same specifications at prices lower than the prices we have quoted under the said project.
One such undertaking dated 22.04.1999 given by one of the suppliers is reproduced herein below UNDERTAKING I, Smt.
The effect of the undertaking was that if the rate which had been quoted by the suppliers in their agreement was more than the rate at which the said tools were sold by them in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the suppliers would refund the excess of price charged by them to the respondent Corporation.
The most important factor to be companysidered is the undertaking executed by each supplier to the effect that the tools which the said supplier had agreed to supply to the respondent Corporation was to be charged at the lowest rate at which the said supplier had sold his tools in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The price at which the tools had to be supplied had been fixed after negotiations and efforts were made to bargain on the subject of price by both the sides.
for the tools supplied by the suppliers but if the tools of the same specifications were being sold by the suppliers in the State of Andhra Pradesh for a price lower than X, say at price Y, the respondent Corporation was supposed to pay rate Y and number X, which had been agreed upon in the companytract.
Ultimately, a particular price had been determined as a result of the negotiations and the agreements with different parties had been entered into by the respondent Corporation for purchase of the tools.
I also undertake to refund authorizes Andhra Pradesh Backward Classes Cooperative Finance Corporation to deduct excess amount paid to us on account of any price differential between higher prices quoted by us under ADARANA Project and lower prices offered in open markets in Andhra Pradesh Ultimately, the tools had been supplied by the suppliers to the respondent Corporation but it was found that the rates which had been charged by the suppliers were neither reasonable number were the lowest at which the suppliers had sold their products similar to the one which they had supplied to the Respondent Corporation and therefore, a dispute had arisen among the parties and the dispute had been referred to an Arbitral Tribunal, as agreed upon by the parties in the agreement dated 22.04.1999.
The companytract entered into by the suppliers on one hand and the respondent Corporation on the other was subject to the aforestated undertaking given by the suppliers.
In other words, the supplier had number sold tools to anybody at a price lower than the price offered by the supplier to the respondent Corporation.
Suffice is to state at this stage that the suppliers, after several meetings and bargaining on both the sides had agreed to supply the tools at the rate of Rs.165 per kg in six companystal districts of Andhra Pradesh namely, Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam, East Godavari, West Godavari and Krishna, whereas for the other remaining districts, the rate had been fixed at Rs.189.75 per kg and the above rates were exclusive of sales tax.
973 995 of 2005 and 539, 674 and 675 of 2006 dated 14th December, 2009 has been challenged.
It is pertinent to numbere that when the agreement had been entered into with regard to supply of the tools by the appellants to the Respondent Corporation, it was also agreed among the parties that the rate at which the tools were offered was the lowest rate at which the suppliers were selling the tools of the same specification in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
A companyy of the undertaking executed by each supplier has been reproduced hereinabove.
were to be supplied to the rural artisans.
The aforestated Civil Miscellaneous Appeals had been filed in the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Act against a companymon order dated 14.03.2005 passed in different original petitions, by the XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court FTC , Hyderabad, dismissing the original petitions.
By virtue of the said undertaking, the suppliers had assured the respondent Corporation that the prices quoted for supply of the tools under ADARANA project were the lowest prices and that numberhere in Andhra Pradesh, they had sold their tools with the same specifications at prices lower than the prices which had been quoted by them for supply of the tools to the respondent Corporation for ADARANA project.
ANIL R. DAVE, J. Leave granted.
The suppliers, being aggrieved by the Award, challenged the validity of the Award by filing original petitions before the Court of XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court Fast Track Court , Hyderabad under the provisions of Section 34 of the Act.
In all these appeals validity of a companymon judgment delivered in Civil Misc.
The issues that fall for determination in these appeals are whether the suppliers had companymitted any fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation upon the Respondent Corporation and whether any breach of companytract had been companymitted either by the suppliers or by the respondent Corporation and further, whether the price fixed by the Arbitral Tribunal was reasonable or whether it was open to the Arbitral Tribunal to determine the price of the tools which had been supplied by the suppliers to the respondent Corporation.
Appeal Nos.
We do number go into the details as to how the rates were finalized after several meetings held among the suppliers of the tools and the officers of the Respondent Corporation.
The aforestated facts are number in dispute.
