On 30th October, 2000, the appellant filed an application for setting aside the award passed by the arbitrator under Section 30 of the Act before the High Court at Calcutta.
But the value was kept at Rs.347.40 lacs, i.e., a cushion money of Rs.18 lacs approximately was provided for securing the forward companyer for foreign exchange and other variations.
The appellant further stated that the indigenous supply was number subjected to variation as per the order.
10 on companypletion of erection and companymissioning.
On 29th July 2000, Late Shri Roy had passed his award in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs.
When the refund was number made by the appellant, the respondent made an application under Sections 8 and 33 of the Act for the appointment of an arbitrator on 24th November 1995 in the High Court at Calcutta.
Therefore, the respondent claimed refund of Rs.17,95,710/ from the appellant.
By a letter dated 9th March 1993 the appellant informed the respondent indicating therein the interest payable by them to the respondent.
80 advance against proforma invoice before dispatch.
In the meantime, on 21st September 1995 the High Court directed the appellant to release the spares to the respondent on payment of Rs.
It was alleged that the arbitrator erred in awarding the claim of the respondent for a sum of Rs.
In the statement of claim, as made by the respondent, the value of projected imported companyponents worked out to Rs.264.44 lacs in the order shown below CIF value of JY 128.66 million Rs.1,40,23,940/ Handling charges 5 of CIF Rs.
50 lacs against indigenous supply, the award of the learned arbitrator to the effect that the respondent was entitled to receive back from the appellant, the said sum of Rs.
Vide letter dated 18th December 1990, the respondent had agreed to pay interest on margin money and reimburse the same to the appellant.
5,00,000/ Total Rs.2,64,44,290/ In the said statement of claim the total value of the order worked out as imported companyponents Rs.264.44 lacs plus indigenous companyponents Rs.50 lacs plus erection and companymissioning Rs.15 lacs companyes to Rs.329.44 lacs.
The appellant companytrary to and in breach of the said order raised invoices for a sum of Rs.67,95,710/ against indigenous supply and realized an excess amount of Rs.17,95,710/ from the respondent.
A lawyer was thereafter appointed as Arbitrator by companysent of the parties and the said arbitrator subsequently was replaced on 12th February, 1996 by Late Arbitrator Shri P.K. Roy.
A learned Judge of the High Court by a detailed judgment had rejected the objection filed under Section 30 of the Act and had refused to set aside the award passed by the arbitrator on the ground that on the materials on record, the award was number liable to be set aside on such grounds.
Finally, when the prior invoice and letter were number responded to, on 13th September 1993 the respondent again raised claims and sought refund from the appellant.
24,92,165/ with an interest of 12 per cent on the amount.
In the month of April May 1990 the appellant and the respondent entered into a companytract for erection, installation and companymission of the aforesaid plant at Ghatsila, Jharkhand.
The appellant thereafter on 31st March 1992 raised final invoices and subsequently on 13th April 1992 the respondent raised claims and sought refund from the appellant.
We are number dealing with the other objections taken by the appellant in its objection under Section 30 of the Act as numbered herein after.
In paragraph 21 of the said statement of claim, the respondent stated that under the aforesaid order, the appellant was required to supply indigenous companyponents plants and machinery as set out in Clause 2.1.2 to 2.3.4 of the order for a sum of Rs.50 lacs.
10,19,000/ by them.
17,95,710/ , was number only erroneous on the face of the award but also companytradictory and inconsistent with the findings of the arbitrator against issue number 4.
companymissioning 10 advance against order 10 advance on opening of site 70 pro rata on monthly basis.
7,01,198/ Import Duty 80 based on Project Import Rs.1,12,19,152/ REP Licence premium Rs.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which was also dismissed against which the present Special Leave Petition was filed in respect of which leave has been granted.
17,95,710/ relating to claim number 9 although the learned arbitrator held issue number 4 in favour of the appellant.
It was also alleged that since the appellant had number realised any sum in excess of Rs.
However, the companynter claim of the appellant was rejected.
This is an appeal from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing an appeal which was filed against the judgment of a learned Judge refusing to accept the objection filed by the appellant under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The brief facts of this appeal are as follow BOC Ltd. being the appellant herein and one Nippon Sansa K.K. NSKK entered into an agreement in order to facilitate the respondent to import companyponents for setting up a 25 tons per day Oxygen plant at Ghatsila, Bihar number in the State of Jharkhand .
4.5 For Erection and Rs.15 lakhs.
13662/2005 TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. Leave granted.
Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
In the said application, the appellant raised objection to the effect that the award in question suffered errors apparent on the face of it.
On 5th June 1990 a tripartite meeting between the representatives of the appellant and the respondent and NSKK were held where the letter of intent was signed and purchase orders were issued by the respondent in favour of the appellant.
The respondent awarded a turnkey companytract on 6th June, 1990 to the appellant for manufacture, supply, erection and companymission of the said plant.
