Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) THE question whether the VSAT equipment was data enabled has been answered by the Arbitral Tribunal in favour of the claimant and against the respondent. The reasoning assigned is in sub paras (ii) to (iv) (pages 57 to 59) of para 17 which reads as under: The main controversy therefore before us is as to (a) whether the VSAT equipment was data enabled, (b) whether the claimant made the data communication. ii) It has been explained to us by the technical experts of both sides that VSAT equipment was both voice and data enabled. Upon various queries being raised by Arbitral Tribunal from the experts from both claimant and the respondent it is absolutely clear that (a) the VSAT equipment was installed; (b) that the VSAT equipment was totally functional for voice communication and that the VSAT equipment was data enabled. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the VSAT equipment though used for the purpose of voice communication was not used by the respondent for data communication. The claimant contends that the VSAT equipment was voice and data enabled and all that was to be done was to merely connect the computer terminals to the data port of the V -SAT equipment and after configuring the system in the computer, data could have easily been transferred by the respondent from one site to the other. On the other hand the respondent has provided us documentary evidence to establish that the computer terminals were available with the respondent and that the same were bought by their head office and were transported to various sites where the VSAT Network is installed. (iii) It is contended by the respondent that the claimant failed to connect the data ports to the computer and as such failed to activate data communication as per the Agreement. (iv) We observe from the various communications and documents filed by the parties that after the installation of the VSAT equipment by the claimant on 15.02.2001 none of the parties indicated that the data communication is operational or not. In terms of the agreement the data communication was to become operational w.e.f. 14.04.2001. However, after 14.04.2001 for a long period both parties remained silent with regard to the operationality of the data communication. The claimant for the first time vide their letter dated 24.11.2001, indicated that they were charging for both voice and data, since invoices were raised for both voice and data w.e.f. 01.04.2001 onwards. Thereafter, on 12.12.2001 the claimant for the first time indicated in clear terms that the VSAT is data enabled since April 2001 and that they were ready to explain to the respondent about the seamless ERP integration. There is no response to this letter of the claimant by the respondent. It was only on 15.01.2001 after a lapse of about nine (9) months for the first time the respondent raised the dispute with regard to the data communication not being commissioned by the claimant and thereafter proceeded to terminate the agreement on the ground that the claimant had not provided/rendered services and had failed to discharge all their obligations under the agreement and therefore were not entitled to any amount for any services rendered under the agreement.
(2.) I find no reason to interfere with the findings of fact and appreciation of the documents on record. The fact that the appellant remained silent with respect to the operationality of the data communication for nine months is sufficient reason to hold against them. No ground for interference is made out.
(3.) DISMISSED .;