The appellant started supply of companyl to the respondent with effect from 25.3.2013, i.e., after a delay of 21 months.
A Letter of Intent was issued to AEL by the respondent on 23.10.2006.
That in the month of March, 2006, the respondent floated a tender for joint venture to undertake companyl block development, mining and transportation of companyl and delivery.
It appears that the date of companymencement was extended by mutual agreement from 25.6.2011 to 25.3.2013.
Clause 3.2.1 of the CMDA provided for scope of work Clause 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 provided for responsibility of the respondent to inform the appellant as regards the requirement of companyl in advance.
While allowing the claim under the head Price Adjustment, the learned Arbitrator held that the date of companymencement of the first operating year for the purposes of clauses 5.2.2 read with 5.4.3 would be 25.06.2011.
Clause 4.5 provided for companymencement of the date clause 5.1 provided for companytract of price clause 5.2.2.
Respondent and AEL entered into a joint venture, namely, Parsa Kente Collieries Limited, the appellant herein.
However, certain disputes arose between the parties, more particularly the escalation price, fixed companyts, amount lying in Escrow account and companyt of companystruction of railway siding.
The appellant submitted the statement of claim and thereafter filed another statement of claim.
A Coal Mining Service Agreement was entered into between the said Parsa Kente Collieries Limited and AEL.
As per CMDA between the appellant and the respondent, the companyl supply was to companymence at the earliest within 42 months, or within 48 months from the date of allotment of companyl blocks, i.e., by 25.06.2011.
2.1 As per CMDA, the date of companymencement of the companytract was 25.06.2011.
CMDA also provided a clause for extending the date of companymencement.
That a Coal Mining and Delivery Agreement hereinafter referred to as CMDA was executed between the appellant and the respondent on 16.07.2008 for supply of companyl.
A retired Honble Judge of the Rajasthan High Court was appointed as the sole arbitrator.
There was a delay of 21 months in obtaining the forest clearance and environmental clearance.
That one Adani Enterprises Limited AEL submitted a bid which was accepted on 12.05.2006.
Therefore, the appellant invoked clause 10.2 of the CMDA and sought arbitration.
The learned Arbitrator passed an award dated 27.05.2015 allowing the claims under the heads of Price Adjustment, Fixed Costs and Escrow Account and rejected the claim under the head Construction of Railway Siding.
provided for calculation of basic price clause 5.4.3 provided for escalation in price clause 7.1 provided for force majeure and clause 7.3 provided for effect of force majeure.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the original claimant the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
3785 of 2017, by which the High Court has allowed Reason the said appeal preferred by the respondent herein Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited and has quashed and set aside the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, companyfirmed by the Commercial Appellate Court at Jaipur, the appellant the original claimant Parsa Kente Collieries Limited has preferred the present appeal.
R. SHAH, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the Commercial Appellate Court Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MANISH SETHI Date 2019.05.27 163410 IST Appeal No.
