Jharkhand High Court
Steel Authority Of India Limited ... vs M/S Choudhary Tar & Chemicals on 5 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Arbitration Appeal No. 10 of 2019
Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) Refractory Unit (SRU)
... ... Appellant
Versus
M/s Choudhary Tar & Chemicals ... Respondent
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate
---
10/05.05.2023 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final
hearing.
3. Lower court records has already been received.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Indrajit Sinha along with
Ms Puja Agarwal have advanced their argument and have submitted
that the award passed by the learned Arbitrator is non-speaking in
many aspects of the matter particularly with respect to the manner in
which he has arrived at the awarded amount. The learned for the
appellant has also submitted that the learned Arbitrator has awarded
penal interest @ 12 annum compounded quarterly if upon expiry of 45
days of the award, the awarded amount with interest is not paid. He
submits that such award of penal interest, that too with compound
interest, was neither a part of the claim nor it could have been awarded
under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which
provides for payment of statutory interest with regard to post award
period. The learned counsel submits that the compound interest could
have been awarded if there was any contract between the parties
regarding award of compound interest. He submits that no such
contractual stipulation has been discussed by the learned arbitrator,
rather the award of such penal interest is totally beyond the scope of
dispute between the parties and against the provisions of the Act of
1996. The learned counsel submits that specific ground was taken
before the learned court below that the award is non-speaking but the
learned court below has not dealt with this aspect of the matter in its
correct perspective, therefore impugned order calls for interference
under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Learned counsel also submits that counter claim filed by the appellant
has been rejected merely by stating that since the purchase order
placed was faulty, any action taken are not valid. The learned counsel
submits that merely because some portion of the work order was
faulty that does not mean that all the clauses of the contract were not
valid. The learned counsel submits that the counter claim was on
account of the risk purchase from alternative sources, therefore
rejection of counter claim with regard to risk purchase is also non-
speaking. He submits that the fact remains that the respondent had
supplied pursuant to the work order.
5. The learned counsel has relied upon judgments passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 20 SCC 1 paragraph 34
and 40 and also (2009) 10 SCC 259 para 20 and 25.
6. Arguments on behalf of the appellant is concluded.
7. At this, learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Rahul Kumar
Gupta submits that he shall advance his arguments on 08.05.2023.
8. Post this case on 08.05.2023 under the heading for Final
disposal to be taken up at 3.30 P.M.
9. Let this matter be treated as part heard.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
