BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. Vs. RAMESH KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the order dtd. 2/1/2017 passed by the Commercial Court, Raipur, whereby the appeal filed by appellant herein against the award dtd. 15/7/2012 passed by Sole Arbitrator was affirmed by the Commercial Court. The Arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs.3,71,80,584.00 with interest in favour of respondent.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd offered a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for mining and transportation of 3,70,000 MTs of Bauxite from Mainpat Mines to its Alumina Plant at Korba (Chhattisgarh). Respondent Ramesh Kumar Jain Proprietor of R.K. Transport Company submitted its tender quoting @ Rs.697.00 per Metric Ton which was the lowest bidding and as such on 11/12/1999 the agreement was entered between BALCO-Appellant and the Claimant/respondent governing contract. Thereafter, in terms of contract, by letter dtd. 20/1/2000, work was awarded for mining and transportation of 2,22,000 MTs of Bauxite from Mainpat Mines to Alumina Plant of Balco at Korba amounting to Rs.14,07,92,400.00 at the rate of Rs.634.20 per MT and the entire work was to be completed within a stipulated period of 18 months. The period of agreement was 18 months, which was to expire by May, 2001 but subsequently it was extended uptill September, 2001. The variable factor price of diesel was included in the contract taking into basis of average distance of 220 Kms from Mainpat Mines to Alumina Plant of BALCO at Korba (C.G). By letter dtd. 5/1/2002, the appellant Company requested the respondent to continue the work and it was stated that the rate would be decided in due course of time. The respondent continued the work and further extracted and transported the total 1,95,000 MTs of Bauxite during the period 16/6/2001 to 31/3/2002. Since the negotiations to the extent of payment could not be settled, the Contractor raised the dispute regarding payment of contract work as also for the extra work done by him as per Clause 9.2.3 of the general terms of the Contract. The application having been filed before the High Court under Sec. 11(6) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the High Court by its order dtd. 12/4/2007 passed in MCC No.192/2006 referred the dispute to the Sole Arbitrator for adjudication.

(3.) The appellant filed its reply and denied the claim statement and raised different defence on the basis of which, 13 issues were framed by the Sole Arbitrator and after evidence eventually the award was passed on 15/7/2012. The award was challenged before the Commercial Court, Raipur. The said appeal was dismissed by an Order dtd. 2/1/2017 by the Commercial Court u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996.