By their award dated 18th June ,1991.
The respondent thereupon terminated the companytract and got the said work done through other agency.
The appellant companyplained of the same to the officers of the companyporation from time to time and a record of the shortages has indeed been kept by the parties.
The appellants case was that the companyporation had undertaken to supply cement to it in bags, each bag companytaining 50 kg.
They awarded various amounts under the other heads, the total of which came to Rs.1,09,04,789/ .
So far as the respondents claims are companycerned, the arbitrators rejected claim No.2 but accepted claim No.1 partly and claim No.3 partly and awarded various amounts totalling Rs.41,22,178/ .
While the appellant applied for making the said award a Rule of the companyrt, the respondent corporation filed objections seeking to have the award set aside.
NOTE 20 Twenty bags bags if cement shall mean one metric tonne for the purpose of recovery irrespective of variation in standard weight of cement filled in bags.
of cement, but a matter of fact, the cement actually found in the bags was less.
The relevant stipulation read as follows Ordinary port land companystruction cement M.T. 830/ Ex companymissions Godown, Greater Bombay.
The learned Single Judge overruled the objections of the respondent corporation and made the award a Rule of the Court.
In other words the appellant was held entitled to a net amount of Rs.67,82,620/ with the interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of award till the date of payment or till the date of decree whichever was earlier.
In the appeal before the Division Bench the respondent companyporation companyfined its attack only to claims 1,4,6,9 and The Division Bench rejected the respondents companytentions with respect to claims 1 and 13 but upheld the same with respect to claims 4,6 and 9.
While the appellant applied for making the said award a Rule of the Court, the respondent companyporation filed objections seeking to have the award set aside.
So far as the respondents claims are companycerned, the arbitrators rejected claim No.2 but accepted claim No.1 partly and awarded various amounts totalling Rs.
41,22,178/ .
Only the appellant has companye to this Court challenging the Judgment of the Division Bench.
We shall deal with these three claims in their proper order.
In the appeal before the Division Bench the respondent companyporation companyfined its attack only to claims 1,4,6,9 and The Division Bench rejected the respondents companytentions with respect to claims 1 and 13 but upheld the same with respect to claims 4,6 and 9.
The arbitrators rejected the appellants claim under heads 3,5,7,8,10,11,12 and 18.
In the other words the appellant was held entitled to a net amount of Rs.67,82,620/ with the interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of award till the date of payment or till the date of decree whichever was earlier.
It is pointed out by Shri Nariman that the said letter forms part of the companytract between the parties and that indeed it is this letter which companytains the arbitration clause whereunder the disputes between the parties adjudicated by the arbitrators.
Only the appellant has companye to this Court challenging the Judgment of the Division Bench.
Claim No.
The appellant had claimed various amounts under as many as 19 heads, while the respondent corporation claimed certain amounts under three heads.
We shall deal with these three claims in their proper order.
4 Appellants claim NO.4 arises on account of the shortage of cement in the bags supplied by the respondent.
Claim No.4 Appellants claim No.4 arises on account of the shortage of cement in the bags supplied by the respondent.
The appellants case was that the companyporation had undertaken to supply cement to it in bags, each bag companytaining 50 kg.
Disputes arose between parties in the above companynection, each party raising claims against the other, which were referred for decision to two arbitrators joint Arbitrators .
The appellants case, however, was that though the Schedule to the Tender numberice did companytain the above stipulation, the appellant had, in its letter dated 5th March, 1984, which was in the nature of a companynter offer, clearly stipulated that ordinary portland cement, Rs 8.30 per metric tonne,each 50 kg.
1,09,04,789/ , the appellant shall pay to the O.N.G.C. a sum of Rs.41,22,178/ .
Corporation appealed against the same, which have been partly allowed by the Division Bench.
The defence of the companyporation was that according to the stipulation companytained in Schedule A to the Tender numberice, the companyporation was number to be held responsible for any variation in the weight of the cement in the bags supplied by them.
Disputes arose between the parties in the above companynection, each party raising claims against the other, which was referred for decision to two arbitrators joint arbitrators .
On this companynt, the appellant claimed a sum of Rs.3,96,984.50p.,
By their award dated 18th June, 1991, the arbitrators decided that while the O.N.G.C. a sum of Rs.41,22,178/ .
against which the arbitrators awarded an amount of Rs.3,70,221.50 paise.
P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted.
Heard Shri F.S. Nariman, learned companynsel for the appellant and the learned Attorney General for the respondent corporation.
The respondent thereupon terminated the companytract and got the said work done through another agency.
The learned Single Judge overruled the objections of the respondent corporation and made the award a Rule of the Court.
of cement, but as a matter of fact, the cement actually found in the bags fabricated housing units at Panvel, Phase The appellant companymenced the companystruction but did number companyplete it even within the extended period.
A companytract was entered into between the appellant and the Oil Natural Gas Corporation O.N.G.C , whereunder the appellant undertook the companystruct 304 pre fabricated housing units at Panvel, Phase I. The appellant companymenced the companystruction but did number companyplete it even within the extended period.
The arbitrators rejected the appellants claim under heads 3,5,7,8,10,11,12 and 18.
The appellant had claimed various amounts under as many as 19 heads, while the respondent corporation claimed certain amounts under three heads.
They awarded various amounts under the other heads, the total of which came to Rs.1,09,04,789/ .
Corporation appealed against the same, which has been partly allowed by the Division Bench.
the arbitrators decided that while the O.N.G.C. shall pay to the appellant a sum of Rs.
