The appellant had simultaneously entered into an agreement with M s Paul Nindenau GmbH for purchase of the said drillship.
Feeling aggrieved, ONGC filed an appeal.
The claim was also number supported by any evidence.
The respondent initiated arbitration proceedings in respect of the dispute relating to number payment of the balance price.
The claim of ONGC as originally made and as altered in the affidavit were both barred by limitation.
That the Award was arbitrary, capricious, irrational and beyond the claim of ONGC.
However thereafter the respondent did number participate in the arbitration proceeding.
Certain companynter claims by ONGC were also allowed.
ABS revised its certificate on 18.6.1985, stating that its earlier certificate dated 25.6.1982 was based on incorrect data supplied by Paul Lindenau GmbH builder of the drillship and the respondent designer, equipment supplier and companystruction supervisor of the drillship .
The appellant thereafter found some defects in the drill ship and therefore withheld the payment to the respondent.
A learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court by judgment dated 2/3 9 1996 set aside the said award.
A Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated 28.7.2004 dismissed the appeal companyfirming the final decision of the learned Single Judge.
The said dispute was referred to arbitration by an Arbitral Tribunal with Shri K.H. Bhabha, Senior Advocate and Vice Admiral Shri N.P. Datta as members.
On 18.9.1995 the Arbitrators made an Award for Rs.36,38,50,000/ Rupees Thirty six crores thirty eight lakhs fifty thousand in favour of ONGC, with interest at the rate of 12 per annum on the said sum from the date of award.
The claim made beyond the warranty period of twelve months, was companytrary to Article 9.2.1 of the companytract warranty clause and was prohibited by the companytract.
The said drillship equipped and mobilised by the respondent reached Bombay on 5.6.1982.
An award was made against ONGC, in regard to the balance price due to the respondent.
The award set out the companytentions of ONGC and the respondent in brief and then proceeded to direct respondent to pay the following amounts being the break up of Rs.36.385 crores by a number speaking award Rs.
On the basis of the said certificate dated 25.6.1982, the appellant took delivery of the Drill ship on 29.6.1982.
The said judgment is challenged by the appellant ONGC in this appeal.
Thereafter on 15.9.1995, the companycluding date of the arguments, ONGC submitted a companyparative statement explaining its claim, giving various alternative calculations.
In lakhs For Cost of Anchors 225.00 For Cost of Anchor chains 938.00 For procuring fitting new motion Compensator 900.00 For additional sponsons 700.00 For Lay up charges 870.00 Cost of Arbitration 13.50 Total Rs.3638.50 Lakhs The said award was challenged by the respondent.
General Manager of ONGC filed an affidavit dated 6.4.1995 as the evidence on behalf of ONGC.
As the respondent was number companytesting the proceedings, the Arbitrators themselves examined Mr. Pramod Seth in detail.
V. Raveendran J., Under a companytract dated 14.7.1981 between appellant and the respondent, the respondent agreed to supply the equipment and engineering drawings and provide the project management and companystruction supervision to M s Paul Lindenau GmbH to assist with the design, building, equipping and launching of a drillship known as Sagar Prabhat purchased by the appellant.
