Delhi High Court
Food Corporation Of India, Moga vs Ravindra Trading Co., Badhni & ... on 22 October, 2018
SINDHU KRISHNAKUMAR
23.10.2018 19:27
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 22nd October, 2018
+ O.M.P. 576/2012
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, MOGA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohan Lal Sharma, Advocate.
(M:9811537909)
versus
RAVINDRA TRADING CO., BADHNI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 ('the Act') has been filed challenging the award dated 8th
February, 2012 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator with the aegis of the
Indian Council of Arbitration.
2. Disputes arose out of an agreement dated 18th October, 1994 which
was entered into between the Petitioner and the Respondents. The same
relates to milling of paddy, which was to be done by the Respondents.
Disputes had arisen between the parties and FCI had invoked arbitration and
raised claims against the Respondents. Operative portion of the award is set
out herein below:
"The claimant in his claim Petition in Para-4,
have specifically given detail of the dealing
between the parties including a copy of balance
sheet.
FCI is a state Corporation and as such the record
and evidence submitted can be relied upon safely.
The damages are being awarded in terms of the
agreement arrived at between the parties.
The Claimant has claimed an amount of Rs. 75,
67, 325/- in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the Storage-cum-Milling agreement
dated 18-10-94 between the Claimant and the
Respondent as per the details at Annexure A.
After due consideration of the facts of the case, I
grant this claim in full to the Claimant on Ex-
parte basis i. e. an amount of Rs.75, 67, 325/- is
awarded to the Claimant against the Respondents.
The Respondent did not honour the Agreement
and did not attend the Arbitration.
I award interest on the above payment @ 10% per
annum from 01.01.2012 till the payment is made.
There has been considerable delay in conducting
the arbitration, which was provided for in the
agreement. The grain was stored for milling in '94
-'95 Kharif season, the default occurred in '94 -
'95 and arbitration proceedings finally started in
2010, I allow 50% of the cost of arbitration
charges incurred by the Claimant to be recovered
from the Respondent."
3. Present petition filed by the FCI is limited to the interest component
in the award. The claim of FCI was for interest @18%. Due to the failure of
the Respondents to seriously contest the arbitration, the Ld. Arbitrator
allowed the claims of FCI with interest @10% p.a. from 1st January, 2012
till the payment is made.
4. The Ld. Arbitrator further held that the Respondent had repeatedly
failed to appear before the Tribunal, and came to the conclusion that the
Respondents were in fact avoiding the proceedings before the tribunal.
There was no communication from their side, in spite of several
opportunities being given to the Respondents, and even after publication of
notices, the Respondents chose not to appear before the Tribunal. Under
these circumstances the Ld. Arbitrator has passed the impugned award.
Admittedly, the contract dates back to 1995. Arbitration was invoked only in
2003 as there was long drawn litigation before the matters were referred to
arbitration by the Supreme Court. Under such circumstances, the interest
granted by the Ld. Arbitrator and the period for which the same has been
granted is reasonable. No interference is called for.
5. OMP is dismissed, accordingly.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
OCTOBER 22, 2018/dk
