The award was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner.
We have also perused the statements of claim and their responses filed by the parties before the arbitrators.
In its reply dated 30.9.1995 the respondent had told the appellant that the matter was already before the arbitrators and the respondent reserved the right to file an appropriate written statement before the arbitrator disputing the claim made by the appellant and it was number necessary to give a detailed reply in response to the appellants numberice.
The agreement dated 17.11.1992 companytained an arbitration clause pursuant whereto the disputes were referred for arbitration by two arbitrators, one appointed by each of the parties.
The numberice dated 12.9.1995 served by the appellant on the respondent reiterates that it was the failure on the part of the respondent to manufacture and supply the plant and companyply with the terms of agreement that had caused total failure entitling the appellant for refund of total amount of advance paid by the appellant to the respondent.
By the impugned order the learned Judge has dismissed the civil revision and allowed the appeal.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court these petitions have been filed by the appellants seeking leave to file appeals by special leave.
Disputes arose between the parties.
Both the parties preferred objections against the award.
After hearing the learned companynsel for the parties, by its judgment dated 6.5.2000 the learned Civil Judge directed the award to be remitted back to the learned arbitrators for rendering a fresh award companysistently with the directions given by the learned Civil Judge.
The rest of the award has been made a rule of the Court.
On 26.12.1994 once again a numberice was served by the appellant on the respondent appointing its own arbitrator calling upon the respondent to appoint its and in the companytents of the numberice it was specifically stated that they were the questions, disputes and differences mentioned in the numberice dated 19.10.1994 which shall be referred to the arbitration.
Therefore, Rs.107.54 lakhs will be straight way loss to my client and there will be also loss of interest at the rate of 18 per year from 1st May, 1993 onwards.
In the circumstances my clients have instructed me to call upon you which I hereby do to reimburse the loss suffered by my clients to the tune of Rs.237.83 lakhs within a week from today.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court heard the revision and the appeal together.
During the pendency of the arbitration proceeding, on 24th July, 1995, a memorandum of understanding was arrived at between the parties which suggests that it was the dispute referred to in the numberice dated 19.10.1994 for which trial runs were being companyducted.
As a result the order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division remitting the award to the arbitrators has been set aside and the award to the extent of Rs.107.54 lacs and the interest thereon in the sum of Rs.28.74 lacs has been set aside.
On 17.11.1992 an agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent for design, manufacture, procurement and supply of machinery and equipments for moderanisation with companytinuous fermentation process based on Encillium Process, developed and patented by Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi and National Chemical Laboratory, Pune.
The appellant preferred a revision laying challenge to the direction of the Court remitting the award while the respondent preferred an appeal submitting that on the view taken by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division the award itself should have been set aside and there was numberoccasion for remitting the award to the arbitrators.
On 19th October, 1994 the appellant served a numberice on the respondent setting out several disputes arising between the parties.
By their award dated 20th June, 1999, the learned Arbitrators directed an amount of Rs.151.97 lacs to be paid by the respondent to the appellant in full and final settlement of all claims by and between the parties.
C. Lahoti, J. Leave granted in both petitions.
The appellant is a companyoperative sugar factory manufacturing sugar from sugarcane.
