RAJDHANI DAL MILL Vs. MMTC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act . Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that the parties entered into a contract for the sale and purchase of 5700 MT of wheat @ of Rs. 670.00 per MT on the terms and condition contained in he contract no.MMTC/Wheat/WFP/MP/98/2 dated 12/2/1998. As per the terms of the contract, the wheat was to be delivered at DDU WEFP Project godowns at Hoshangabad, Mandla Bilaspour.According to the petitioner the date on which the goods were offered for inspection was to be considered as the date of the delivery but the defendants have taken the date of actual inspection to be date of delivery as a result of which the respondents have calculated the late delivery charges/penalty charges. According to the petitioner, it completed the contract in ell respects, but the respondents have withheld the payment of Rs. 17,20,236.28 on the ground that the goods have been late delivered and, therefore, the respondents are entitled to levy the penalty. The petitioner contention is that the contract was completed in time and the delay, if any, has been caused due to the negligence on the part of the respondents as the defendants have from time to time changed the destination station which they could not do as per the terms of the agreement.It is alleged that during the pendency of the contract, the respondent instructed the plaintiff that instead of delivering the goods at Mandla and Kankar, the goods should be delivered at Jabalpour and Seoni due to the non-aval lability of space in the godowns of WFP at Mandla and banker. The petitioner accordingly followed the instructions and in doing so it suffered a loss of Rs.4.90,700.00. Besides the petitioner also suffered loss of Rs.3,27,250.00 on account of change of destination. It is further pleaded that a sum of Rs.63,404.70 towards the price of the goods is still outstanding against the respondents. The petitioners are entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 4,47,221.48 on account of late payment.

(2.) The said contract contains an arbitration clause which reads as under:

(3.) The respondents have contested the petition mainly on the ground that all disputes between the parties already stand settled mutually. It is pleaded that in March, 1999 a mutual settlement took place between the parties under which a sum of Rs 1,26,553.00 was found due and payable to the petitioner which amount was duly paid and accepted by the petitioner vide letter dated 18/3/1999. However, on the request of the petitioner respondent again approached WFP and WFP further agreed to refund a sum of Rs.1,49,110.22 which was offered to the applicant. It is thus submitted that the matter stands mutually settled between the parties and there remained no arbitration dispute which could be referred to the arbitration and hence this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act as not maintainable. In the rejoinder the petitioner has denied that there was any mutual settlement or that a sum of Rs.1,26,553.00 was accepted in full and final settlement of all claims by the petitioner against the respondent.