Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

M/S. Kumar Transports vs The Senior Divisional Electrical ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14118 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 14118 Mad
Judgement Date : 15 July, 2021

Madras High Court
M/S. Kumar Transports vs The Senior Divisional Electrical ... on 15 July, 2021
                                                             1




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 15.07.2021

                                                         CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

                                                     O.P.No.973 of 2019

                M/s. Kumar Transports
                Rep. by its Partner Mr.M.Sugumar
                Bo.18, First Street,
                Thillaipuram, Namakkal – 637 001.                            ..       Petitioner

                                                             .Vs.

                The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer
                Traction Distribution/Works
                Southern Railway
                Chennai Division,
                Chennai – 600 003.                                           ..      Respondent

                                                            ***

                Prayer: Petition filed under Section 34 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation
                Act, 1996 praying to set aside the part of the award dated 12.02.2019 passed by
                the Sole Arbitrator with regard to the rejection of the claims No.4,5 and 6 made by
                the petitioner before the Arbitral Tribunal and allow the claim Nos.4,5 and 6 made
                by the petitioner before the Arbitral Tribunal with the cost of this proceedings.
                                                         ***
                              For Petitioner     :      Mr.N.Premkumar

                                    For Respondent   :     Mr.P.T.Ramkumar



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                               2


                                                         ORDER

This Petition has been filed challenging the Award dated 12.0.2019 passed

by the learned Arbitrator in negativing the claim of the petitioner, as far as the

claim Nos.4, 5 and 6 are concerned.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this application is as follows:

By a letter of acceptance dated 24.11.2014 and Tender

No.M/TRD/29/I/OT/2014-15/5 for “Hiring of diesel driven LMV breakdown

vehicle having 6 ton capacity 4 Nos for 24 months at 4 OHE depots located at

ACK, CGL, AB & AJJ in Chennai Division” was assigned to the claimant. As

dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent, the respondent has issued

seven days notice and termination notice stated that 48 hours failing which

terminated the contract which resulted in referring dispute to the learned Sole

Arbitrator. The sole Arbitrator entered into the reference, originally the claimant

has claimed a return of bill amount and Earnest Money Deposit and performance

guarantee. However, he has raised additional claim in the claim statement towards

interest a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation and interest in the performance

guarantee. The learned Arbitrator passed an award, in which claim Nos.4,5 and 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

have been negatived. Claim No.4 is in respect of claiming interest relying upon

the General Conditions of the Contract. Clause 16 (3) and 64.5 of the Contract

clearly indicates that interest portion was disallowed. Similarly, claim No.5 is

disallowed relying upon the same condition. Claim 7 is disallowed relying upon

the General Conditions of the Contract and the same has been rejected. Aggrieved

over the same, the present petition has been filed.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has

preferred this petition claiming interest. He relied on the judgment of the Division

Bench of this Court wherein it has been held that claim of interest has not disputed

by the Railways. Despite the specific Clause in the General Condition of Contract

which restricts the interest, still interest is payable in this regard. He also relied

upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No.279 of 2018

and order passed by this Court in O.P.No.290 of 2018 to that effect that the loss

towards anticipated profits ought to have been awarded by the learned Arbitrator.

The learned Arbitrator infact while allowing the claim for payment of bill

amounts, Earnest Money Deposit and return of performance of guarantee and

disallowed the interest portion alone.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

4. At the outset the Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioner in O.S.A.279 of 2018 is not applicable to the facts of the case. In the

above case, the issue of interest was never disputed and in fact, even no argument

was raised during the appeal stage. In such circumstances, this Court has held that

when the same has not been raised during the appeal stage, it amounts to

admission for payment of interest. Whereas in this case, the learned Arbitrator

invoked the provision in payment of interest as per General Condition of Contract.

Clause 61(2) and 61 (3) of the General Conditions of the Contract reads as

follows :

61 (2) Payment on Determination of Contract: Should the contract be

determined under Sub Clause (1) of this Clause and the Contractor claims

payment for expenditure incurred by him in the expectation of completing

the whole of the work, the Railways shall admit and consider such claims

as are deemed reasonable and are supported by vouchers to the

satisfaction of the Engineer. The Railway's decision on the necessity and

propriety of such expenditure shall be final and conclusive.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

61 (3) The Contractor shall have no claim to any payment of

compensation or otherwise, howsoever on account of any profit or

advantage which he might have derived from the execution of the work in

full but which he did not derive in consequence of determination of

contract.

5. The above Clauses makes it very clear that the parties have agreed not to

claim any interest for compensation. When the Clause itself is specifically barred,

the parties from claiming interest which has been agreed upon by the parties. Now,

it cannot be said that as far as interest for compensation is concerned, the

conditions of the contract is not applicable to the parties. A perusal of the award

passed by the learned Arbitrator and claim petition, it is seen that no documents

whatsoever have been filed to substantiate the so-called expenditure, as a result, it

suffered loss. Therefore, in view of the above, when a claim is made claiming

damages, the party has to establish actual loss. Admittedly, in the contract, there

is no estimated damages agreed upon as estimated damages. Hence, I do not find

any merits in this petition and this petition is liable to be dismissed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Accordingly, this Original Petition is dismissed. No costs.

15.07.2021

Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/Non-speaking order dh

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

dh

order in:

O.P.No.973 of 2019

15.07.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter