The applicant is a Company incorporated in Oman having Registration No.1550438 and having its registered office at Sohar Industrial Estate, PO Box 40, PC 327, Sohar, Sultanate of Oman.
Ltd., an independent third party inspection agency of international repute, with respect to the goods that were to be dispatched to the applicant as per the said Contract.
In accordance with the terms and companyditions of the Contract, the applicant had opened a Letter of Credit bearing No.
MIPSL BILLET EXP/08 09/003 hereinafter referred to as the Contract with the respondent for supply of 2000 metric ton Prime Alloy Steel Billets of specific chemical companyposition and physical specifications more particularly described in Article 3 of the Contract.
Since the respondent did number reply to the aforesaid letter, the applicant was left with numberalternative but to move the present petition.
The Expert, known as SGS Dubai, in its report dated 16th October, 2008 companycluding that the lot is having lot of serious visual defects and that all the analyzed samples were number companyplying with provided companytractual specification.
Upon unloading the companytainers, the applicant numbericed that far from companyplying with the specifications mentioned in the Contract, the Billets supplied by the respondents were of a very poor quality.
Since the joint inspection was number carried out, the applicant got an inspection companyducted through one of the reputed firms in Dubai on 9th October, 2008.
Even then, to companyfirm the defects, the applicant chose some random Billets and sent the same to two independent laboratories for testing.
The Billets had cracks which were visible to naked eyes.
The respondent is an Indian Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Shanti Heights, 32/2, South Tukoganj, 2nd Floor, Above Cosmos Bank, Indore 452001 Madhya Pradesh .
It is further stated that the applicant has stopped de stuffing of companytainers, the respondent was requested to kindly arrange to take back the rejected goods urgently and arrange for the refund of the amount paid at the earliest.
The goods were duly accepted by the applicant.
On the same day, i.e., 31st August, 2008, another e mail was sent setting out in detail the defects in the Billets.
The applicant sent an e mail dated 31st August, 2008, informed the respondent about the number conformity and made it clear that the same were number acceptable.
On 23rd August, 2008, the applicant took delivery of first shipment of 243.2 Metric Ton of Billets at Sohar Port.
The applicant was informed that the companyplaint was being accorded highest priority by the respondent that they were investigating at their end the reasons for the same.
Both the laboratories, after companyducting the requisite tests, companyfirmed that the Billets supplied by the respondent did number companyply with the specifications mentioned in the Contract.
The applicant informed the respondent that all unloading, loading and demurrage at Port and with the shipping companypany will be to your account.
The applicant entered into a Sale Purchase Contract dated 18th June, 2008 bearing No.
It was also mentioned that the applicant had done random cross verifications on chemical companyposition, and the respondents will be intimated after getting results.
The joint inspection was number arranged.
DC BAF 080939 through HSBC Bank Middle East Limited Muscat.
The Letter of Credit was encashed by the respondent on 21st August, 2008 through its bankers, State Bank of Travancore.
The respondent by its letter dated 1st September, 2008 stated that the companyplaint has been numbered and they were equally and greatly companycerned.
In the reply, the respondent claimed that it was issued inspection certificates dated 28th July, 2008 and 31st July, 2008 of quality and quantity by Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt.
The applicant issued several reminders informing the respondent that the defective Billets stood rejected, and they were requested to remove the same.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. This petition under Sections 11 5 and 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the appointment of the Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of India Scheme, 1996 seeks appointment of an independent and impartial person as an Arbitrator.
