Petitioner – Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd (TCIL)
Respondent – MBL Infrastructure Ltd. (MBL)
Court- Delhi High Court
The petitioner has filed the present petition under S. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) challenging an arbitral award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of three Arbitrators. The said award was passed by a 2:1 majority. The impugned award was delivered in the context of disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to an agreement dated 17.09.2008, as amended by an agreement dated 31.10.2008.
Facts
Haryana State Roads & Bridge Development Corporation Ltd. (HSRDC) invited tenders for construction of houses with parking in basement in the campus of Rajiv Gandhi Thermal Power Project in Hissar District” (the project).
TCIL submitted its tender for executing the project works and its bid was accepted by HSRDC and the contract for implementation of the project was awarded to TCIL. TCIL was directed to furnish a Performance Security for an amount equivalent to 5% of the contract price within 21 days of the receipt of the letter. The same was duly furnished by TCIL. Thereafter, TCIL approached the MBL to execute the said project as a sub-contractor and on 18.08.2008, MBL agreed to the terms and conditions. It was agreed that the contract would be executed on back-to-back basis with TCIL retaining a margin of 2.5% and disbursing the balance 97.5% to MBL.
Thereafter an agreement was entered into between TCIL and MBL (the Agreement). MBL agreed to complete the project within a period of eighteen months. TCIL agreed to release the payments received from HSRDC, after deducting 2.5% margin, immediately on receiving the same. MBL furnished a Performance Security in the form of a Bank Guarantee (PBG) for the sum of Rs. 1,61,47,491 and an invoice payment Bank Guarantee (IBG) for Rs. 60 lacs on 06.10.2010, in favour of TCIL.
The works as originally agreed were completed within the stipulated period. However, the actual date of completion was extended on account of extra work executed by MBL and also delay arising on account of various decisions taken by HSRDC. The work was finally completed to the satisfaction of TCIL on 30.11.2011. Certificates were issued by TCIL indicating that MBL’s performance on various parameters was “very good”. HSRDC issued the Completion Certificate on 04.06.2013. HSRDC also granted extension of time for execution of project up to 30.11.2011 without any levy of liquidated damages.
On 06.06.2013, MBL submitted the aforesaid Completion Certificate to TCIL. MBL further requested TCIL to release their payments withheld by it and also to release their security deposit at the earliest. On 19.07.2013, HSRDC issued a certificate to the effect that the work had been successfully completed. On 22.07.2013, MBL addressed a communication to TCIL enclosing Completion Certificate, Defect Liability Certificate, cheque issued by HSRDC and also the original Performance Bank Guarantees released by HSRDC in favour of TCIL and requested TCIL to release the original PBG furnished by it. It also requested TCIL to release the outstanding dues along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
TCIL instead of releasing the PBGs sent a communication to the bankers of MBL seeking encashment of the PBG furnished by MBL. Aggrieved by the same, MBL approached this Court under S. 9 of the Act, seeking a stay order. This Court, by an order dated 12.08.2013, restrained TCIL from encashing the bank guarantees issued in its favour till the next date of hearing, that is, 25.09.2013.
This was the catalyst for MBL to refer the disputes to arbitration. MBL filed its claims and TCIL filed counterclaims. The Arbitral Tribunal partly accepted the claims preferred by the respondent. The Arbitral Tribunal accepted that the total amount payable to the respondent in respect of its claim would be Rs. 5,91,36,814. The Arbitral Tribunal also awarded cost quantified at Rs. 58,48,927/- along with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum. TCIL challenged parts of the award, as being patently illegal and contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian Law. Aggrieved by impugned award, TCIL has filed the present petition.
Issues
Was the compensation for invocation of bank guarantee awarded to MBL justified in the absence of proof of such loss?
Was the compensation awarded for TCIL’s refusal to confirm the certificate it had given to MBL justified?
Judgment
The Arbitral Tribunal found in favour of MBL that TCIL had illegally and arbitrarily did not release the PBG. The Tribunal found that there was no material on record to show that MBL had availed of the Bank Guarantee limits to the extent of Rs. 465 crores. On the contrary, the evidence on record indicated that MBL had utilised the limits only to the extent of Rs. 90 crores. MBL could also not establish the additional cash outflow it claimed because of wrongful invocation of the Bank Guarantees. Similarly, the Arbitral Tribunal also did not find sufficient evidence to support MBL’s claims of having to pay increased commission. Despite having held the above, the Arbitral Tribunal also found in favour of MBL that TCIL had wrongfully, illegally and arbitrarily invoked the Bank Guarantees (PBG and IBG). Considering the wrongful conduct on the part of TCIL, the Arbitral Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,00,000/ – in favour of MBL, as it was the view of the Arbitral Tribunal, that the same was a “just and fair compensation” to MBL for wrongful and illegal invocation of the Bank Guarantees by TCIL.
The said award was held to be unsustainable. After the Arbitral Tribunal had examined MBL’s contention and had found that MBL had not substantiated its claims for the losses allegedly incurred by it, it could not proceed to award any amount as fair compensation for the wrongful invocation of the Bank Guarantees. The Court held that the impugned award is patently illegal to the aforesaid extent. There is no evidence on record to establish the measure of damages. Thus, the award of Rs. 10,00,000/-, is without any basis and is patently illegal.
TCIL had issued a certificate certifying that MBL’s performance was very good. The said certificate had been furnished by MBL to M/s. RITES Ltd., in connection with another bid. However, TCIL failed to confirm to RITES Ltd. that it had issued the said certificate. Since, there is no dispute that it had issued the certificate in question, there was, thus, no reason for it not to confirm the same. The Tribunal found that the conduct of TCIL was mala fide and it had not confirmed the certificate for ulterior motives resulting in a loss to MBL. The Court seconded the view of the tribunal. However, the Court could not sustain the award of Rs. 60,00,000/- as compensation for “the loss and damages caused to MBL due to non-confirmation of the performance certificate issued by TCIL”. This is because, there was no evidence on record to establish that MBL had suffered a loss to the aforesaid extent. The impugned award to that extent was set aside.
The petition was allowed to that extent and all pending applications were disposed of.
K S & Co Comment :
This case was interesting because the Court has expanded its S. 34 jurisdiction and gone into the merits of the award passed by the tribunal and decided a very important principle: where the Tribunal finds that no losses were incurred, it cannot order any compensation. This case is an outlier and exception where the Court has interfered with the decision and reasoning of the Tribunal. The fairness of this judgment is debatable. On the one hand, it can be argued that the Court corrected an error in the award, however, in doing so, the court has transgressed its mandate under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Leave a Reply