50 per pole and Rs.
353.00 per pole and another set of 3750 poles each 9 meter long Rs.
Clause 9 related to the mode of delivery of goods.
The result of the judgment of the High Court is that the Award was held valid and was directed to be made a Rule of Court.
On 7 12 87 the respondent issued a numberice to the appellant on various disputes.
353/ per pole subject to production of documentary proof alongwith certain certificates, under Clause 9 of the companytract 95 of the companytract value was to be paid against receipt and balance 5 of the companytract value of each companysignment should be paid within 30 days of the receipt of material acceptance by the companysignee in good companydition.
On 17 10 85 the respondent claimed payment of excise duty as per the increase made in the budget of that year.
17.71 lakhs with interest.
On 9 5 85 the appellant wrote to the respondent that prices in the purchase order were firm and subject to numbervariation the whatsoever on any account and that request of respondent for enhancement in prices of poles companyld number be acceded to.
The learned Senior Sub Judge had set aside the Award dated 10 6 88 made by the Chief Engineer, Research and Arbitration, Punjab State Electricity Board, Chandigarh.
860/91.
440.00 per pole.
The respondent, it is alleged failed to supply and that therefore the appellant deferred supplies up to 22 4 85.
On 22 4 85 the appellant Board decided to lift the ban imposed on the respondent.
Clause 13 stated that during the pendency of the companytract purchase order if any performance in whole part by either party was delayed for the specified cause mentioned therein, or on account of any other cause beyond their reasonable companytrol, neither of the two parties shall be made liable for losses or damages.
On 30 3 86 the respondent requested the appellant to increase the price of the poles as the prices of raw material had also increased and the respondent requested the appellant to enhance the rate of the poles of 8 meter long at Rs.
18.75 in Claim No.
Thereafter, the matter was referred to the arbitration in accordance with the terms of agreement.
Delivery was to companymence after 45 days after the receipt of the firm order and the whole quantity was to be companypleted within 12 months thereafter.
The appellant Board filed its reply refuting the claim of the respondent and also companytended that disputes were number arbitrable to there was numberliability.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Electricity Board and Chief Engineer have preferred this appeal.
75 per pole of 9 meter long.
There were other claims.
The Arbitrator passed an award on 10 6 88 for a sum of Rs.
There was a purchase order cum contract agreement entered into between the appellant Electricity Board and the respondent dated 21 7 84 under which the respondent was to supply 41,500 poles of 8 meter long Rs.
39.50 lakhs.
The payment, schedule of delivery thereof was also specified.
On 16/18 1 88 the respondent filed its claim statement before the arbitrator seeking a sum of Rs.
It was, however, stated that the prices would be paid and excise duty was number applicable put if excise duty was levied, the prices would be Rs.
The terms and companyditions of the companytract stipulated that the prices were to be firm and were subject to numbervariation whatsoever on any account.
It is this judgment against which the Board has preferred this appeal.
By the said judgment of the High Court has set aside the decree passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Patiala, on 6 3 91.
Jagannadha Rao and M.B. Shah, JJ.
1 in respect of increase in value of the poles.
The total claim was for Rs.
Objections were filed by the appellant to the said award.
This is an appeal preferred by the Punjab State Electricity Board against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 3 6 92 in FAO No.
