Respondent filed Appeal No.
2187 of 1982 for payment and for attachment before judgment.
The petitioner on 11th July, 1983 terminated the agreement with effect from 31.8.83.
The said agreement was arrived at between the parties whereunder it was provided that in case the respondent failed to lift raw petroleum companye as agreed, the petitioner would have right to shift raw petroleum companye at the risk and expense of the respondent.
There was a second agreement on 22nd April, 1971.
858 of 1983.
The learned District Judge passed an order on 28th April, 1984 for restoration of supplies.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.3.88 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
The respondent thereafter filed Suit No.
Interim award was filed in the High Court of Bombay and the petitioner challenged the said award.
The order was companyfirmed after numberice.
On 21st December, 1982, it appears that there was an order of attachment of stocks of raw petroleum companye to the extent of Rs.6 crores of the respondent.
On 21st August, 1986 an interim award was passed by the learned arbitrator.
On 11th December, 1984 matter relating to the petitioners claims in respect of interest on stocks held from 1st October, 1982 onwards and expenses of shifting raw petroleum companye from 1st October, 1982 upto 31st August, 1983, were referred to arbitration of Shri A.K. Sarkar, a former Chief Justice of India.
2476 of 1984, this Court stayed the above order.
122 of 1983 and applied for an order companypelling the petitioner to make supplies.
306 of 1988.
Thereafter the petitioner filed Suit No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Civil No.
There was a third agreement providing that in case of delay in payment, the respondent would pay interest at 4 per cent over the I.O.C. Bank borrowing rate, on the value of the stock number uplifted.
S. Nariman, B.D. Sharma and R.P. Kapur for the Petitioner.
On 24th May, 1984 this Courts order setting aside the order of the learned District Judge dated 28th April, 1984 and recorded the companypromise terms.
It appears that on 5th August, 1982, the respondent wrote a letter to the petitioner showing inability to pay the arrears of the price against delivery of raw petroleum companye.
Pursuant to the companypromise, all proceedings were withdrawn by the parties.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Harsh Mittre, Harish N. Salve, Jeel Peres, D.N. Mishra and Mrs. A.K. Verma for the Respondents.
The petitioner in this case on 23rd June, 1961, had agreed to sell to the predecessor of respondent raw petroleum companye.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This petition under Article 136 of the Constitution challenges the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay dated 21st March, 1988.
Civil Appeal No.
On 7th May, 1984 in petitioners appeal viz.,
Thereafter respondent on 20th ostler, 1983 filed an application for stay of the suit under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter called the Act .
4557 of 1988.
The petitioner on 18th October, 1982 wrote to the respondent that unless the outstandings as on 1st September, 1982 and interest were paid, the petitioner would number make further supplies.
On 4th October, 1982 there was a stock of about 13,760 T.S. Of saleable raw petroleum companye lying at Gauhati Refinery.
