Sanjib Banerjee, J. - (1.) THE challenge to the arbitral award in the present proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is primarily on the ground that the arbitrator did not take into account the material before him that the claim of the respondent herein stood satisfied upon the supply of tea effected by the petitioner company.
(2.) THE facts as are relevant for the present purpose may be culled out from the impugned award of July 4, 2014. The parties apparently entered into an agreement on April 1, 2005 under which a sum of Rs. 65 lakh advanced by the respondent to the petitioner was to be adjusted against the supply of green tea by the petitioner to the respondent. For the three financial years of 2005 -06, 2006 -07 and 2007 -08, the petitioner herein was to supply green tea leaves of value of Rs. 15 lakh each; and, in course of the financial year 2008 -09, the petitioner was to supply green tea leaves of value of Rs. 20 lakh. The respondent claimed in the reference that the petitioner neither supplied the tea nor repaid the amount despite demands. The respondent relied on a cheque for Rs. 71,50,000/ - apparently issued by the petitioner in its favour and claimed that such cheque was dishonoured upon presentation and it was evident that the respondent's claim was undisputed. For reasons not necessary to be gone into herein, the arbitrator disregarded the dishonoured cheque. However, the arbitrator proceeded on the claim under the agreement of April 1, 2005 and the petitioner's defence thereto.
(3.) THE petitioner submits that it was the petitioner's specific case before the arbitrator that the petitioner had effected supply of green tea leaves to the respondent, at least between April and October, 2005; but the respondent did not acknowledge the same or give any credit to the petitioner on such account. The petitioner complains that even the respondent's witness acknowledged that supplies were received by the respondent from the petitioner's tea garden during the relevant period, but the arbitrator failed to take such matter into account while deciding the claim. The petitioner says that the award contradicts itself in it referring to the documents adduced in evidence by the petitioner in support of its assertion that substantial supplies were effected by the petitioner to the respondent, but in the later part of the award it being recorded that there was no material in support of the petitioner's assertion of repayment or adjustment of the dues.;