Delhi High Court
Yasoda Devi vs Mineral & Metals Trading ... on 31 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999 VIAD Delhi 171
Author: V Sen
Bench: V Sen
ORDER
Vikramajit Sen, J.
1. These Objections have been filed against the Award dated 4.5.1997 passed by an Arbitral Tribunal of Justice R.S. Sarkaria (Retired), Justice Jaswant Singh (Retired) and Justice K.S. Sidhu (Retired). The only contention urged by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Objector was that an Application dated 29.4.1997 had been filed whereby the Statement made on behalf of the Objector on 26.4.1997, to the effect that "Respondent is willing to give/pay Principal amount of M.M.T.C." was sought to be retracted. It was contented in that application that the respondent "has come to known that entire claim of M.M.T.C. is only compound interest and there exist no Principal amount". Learned counsel for the Objector stated that on a bare reading of the impugned Award, it would be palpably clear that this application was not considered by the Arbitral Tribunal and that the Award was, therefore, liable to be set aside. I have considered this ground but find no reason to interfere with the Award.
2. The facts of the case are that an agreement was entered into between the parties on 24th December, 1991 covenanting inter alia as follows :
"On realisation of 100% sale proceeds by MMTC from Overseas buyers against L/C or on collection basis, payment shall be released to the units after making deductions as under :
(i) All dues accruing to MMTC in repayment of credit/sale price difference of the material supplies.
(ii) 2.5% or more of invoice value as instalment of repayment of export promotion loan.
(iii) Pre-shipment/Post shipment credit extended against the order.
(iv) MMTC's service charges which will be as under :-
1% of CIF VALUE.
(v) Any other claim lodged and/or penalty or deductions imposed by foreign buyers or any other dues of the Corporation.
MMTC shall pay to the unit of amount as calculated on the basis of the above para in Indian currency at the rate of exchange on which MMTC realise the sale proceeds.
The units shall stand guarantee for the full realisation of sale proceeds by MMTC from the buyers.
3. Annexure R-4 to these objections is in effect a Statement of Account and shows that various charges were levied, such as, interest, T.R. Charges 20% Bank charged and MMTC Commission.
4. The sundry statement of account pertaining to transactions between the paries, are admitted by both the parties. It is however, contended by the learned Counsel appearing for MMTC that its claim before the Arbitral Tribunal were for Rs. 13,23,132/- (Rs. Thirteen Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand One Hundred Thirty Two only) subsequently corrected to Rs. 11,97,671/- (Rs. Eleven Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Six Hundred Seventy One only) wherein Rs. 7,24,314/- (Seven Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Three Hundred Fourteen only) was the Principal due and claim and the rest, being Rs. 4,73,357/- (Rs. Four Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Seven only) was towards interest and additional service charges. Only the Principal sum of Rs. 7,24,314/- had been granted and therefore the Award was in fact based on the admission of the Objector.
5. The Arbitral Tribunal was mindful of saving unnecessary and avoidable expenditure by encouraging the settlement of the disputes. The Award is dated 4th May, 1997. There is no reason to believe that the application dated 29.4.1997 if filed was not considered by the Arbitral Tribunal. There is no allegation of misconduct against the three distinguished panelists. In fact, the Award grants only the Principal amount claimed by the M.M.T.C. and has disallowed the subsequent interest and/or penalties claimed in the Statement of Claim. Keeping in view the transactions between the parties the Principal amount in this case would be the aggregate of interest charges, commissions, bank charges etc. There is, therefore, no infirmity with the Award.
6. The grounds on which an Award may be set aside by the Court are contained in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Arbitral Tribunal has granted only the Principal amount due, in terms of the statement made before it by learned Counsel for the Objector. The case does not fall within any of the situations postulated under this Section.
7. The present application/objections, having no merit, is refused and rejected with costs against the objector and in favour of MMTC which is fixed at Rs. 5000/-. The Award shall be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as a decree of the Court.
8. The Decree Sheet be drawn up in terms of the Award.
