w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Steel Authority of India Limited (Sail) v/s Primetals Technologies India Private Limited (Formerly Known as Siemens Val Metals Technologies Pvt. Ltd.


Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L27109DL1973GOI006454

Company & Directors' Information:- PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120MH2014FTC260092

Company & Directors' Information:- PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120WB2014FTC222098

Company & Directors' Information:- SIEMENS LIMITED [Active] CIN = L28920MH1957PLC010839

Company & Directors' Information:- S A L STEEL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L29199GJ2003PLC043148

Company & Directors' Information:- M M S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109TZ1996PTC006849

Company & Directors' Information:- M S C TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64201DL2002PLC115040

Company & Directors' Information:- G. O. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100PB2007PTC031033

Company & Directors' Information:- C P S STEEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27104TZ2003PTC010552

Company & Directors' Information:- M K M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32109DL2000PTC103261

Company & Directors' Information:- E-METALS INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L67120MP1993PLC007899

Company & Directors' Information:- J M G STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27105BR1992PTC004985

Company & Directors' Information:- T & T METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1996PTC079144

Company & Directors' Information:- T & T METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109JH1996PTC010474

Company & Directors' Information:- C R P METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U13203DL2007PTC162721

Company & Directors' Information:- G B R METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112TN2006PTC059316

Company & Directors' Information:- V-3 TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2000PTC105933

Company & Directors' Information:- R N METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120TG2012PTC079808

Company & Directors' Information:- H L STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27107AS1992PTC003726

Company & Directors' Information:- K V M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29141DL1988PTC031248

Company & Directors' Information:- B R METALS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27320AS1992PLC003681

Company & Directors' Information:- M P B METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101MH2014PTC258799

Company & Directors' Information:- K STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27104JH1973PTC000998

Company & Directors' Information:- R. J. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112MH2009PTC193047

Company & Directors' Information:- D S METALS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27103WB1988PTC044523

Company & Directors' Information:- M M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107MH2001PTC131270

Company & Directors' Information:- R S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U30007DL1998PTC093644

Company & Directors' Information:- R S METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27201RJ1973PTC001538

Company & Directors' Information:- C L C TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2000PTC105957

Company & Directors' Information:- C A METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100DL1988PTC031833

Company & Directors' Information:- B L STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1981PTC034021

Company & Directors' Information:- R K G STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109DL2004PTC128852

Company & Directors' Information:- V B STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112MH2010PTC211691

Company & Directors' Information:- I Q TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2000PLC034058

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100DL2008PLC303771

Company & Directors' Information:- I B STEEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28910MH2010PTC211344

Company & Directors' Information:- IN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2010PTC210298

Company & Directors' Information:- S L R STEEL AND METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52599JH2010PTC014265

Company & Directors' Information:- Y D STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27109WB1997PTC086155

Company & Directors' Information:- J S C STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27106UP2013PTC061568

Company & Directors' Information:- M. P. K. METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107AS2009PTC009295

Company & Directors' Information:- S. M. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101MH2013PTC239811

Company & Directors' Information:- R K P STEEL LTD [Active] CIN = L27109WB1980PLC033206

Company & Directors' Information:- C P STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100WB2008PTC127447

Company & Directors' Information:- H AND H TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U30009CH1999PTC022316

Company & Directors' Information:- S D M TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22219KA2013PTC070117

Company & Directors' Information:- A. K. J. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112WB2010PTC144880

Company & Directors' Information:- M & M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1990PTC056999

Company & Directors' Information:- C D STEEL PVT LTD [Under Liquidation] CIN = U27109WB1981PTC034340

Company & Directors' Information:- S K S METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100DL2009PTC194550

Company & Directors' Information:- T M S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U02710TZ1996PTC007498

Company & Directors' Information:- I K METALS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28910TG2014PTC092558

Company & Directors' Information:- S L S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00367KA1988PTC009651

Company & Directors' Information:- VAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2005PTC047143

Company & Directors' Information:- A V K TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2002PTC113742

Company & Directors' Information:- C V TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52311CH2013PTC034790

Company & Directors' Information:- R G TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109DL2000PTC106267

Company & Directors' Information:- P M R STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51102DL2003PTC122675

Company & Directors' Information:- C T STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27109WB2005PTC106634

Company & Directors' Information:- R S I METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109UP2005PTC030888

Company & Directors' Information:- P G STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U24111AS1998PTC005409

Company & Directors' Information:- L A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900MH2010PTC209195

Company & Directors' Information:- R. A. METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28113DL2011PTC256094

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090DL1987PTC027835

Company & Directors' Information:- N R TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900GJ2000PTC038010

Company & Directors' Information:- H R TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52603MH2003PTC138635

Company & Directors' Information:- S R S METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27200KA1998PTC023427

Company & Directors' Information:- R B S METALS PVT LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U28111CT1989PTC005335

Company & Directors' Information:- K S METALS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65921WB1988PTC043774

Company & Directors' Information:- M B METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27109PB1991PTC011541

Company & Directors' Information:- C S A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300TN1996PTC037105

Company & Directors' Information:- L AND S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1996PTC104023

Company & Directors' Information:- J S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52190CT1978PTC001432

Company & Directors' Information:- D P METALS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U00000DL1988PTC031019

Company & Directors' Information:- U M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27209TN1986PTC013670

Company & Directors' Information:- U V METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15499TN1986PTC013435

Company & Directors' Information:- G-3 TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40106UP2020PTC132974

Company & Directors' Information:- E & G STEEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28113PN2009PTC134643

Company & Directors' Information:- D R I TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TG2020PTC144351

Company & Directors' Information:- J N METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28910WB2007PTC113134

Company & Directors' Information:- M G S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG1997PTC028524

Company & Directors' Information:- L N STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310WB2007PTC118206

Company & Directors' Information:- J V METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109DL2004PTC127614

Company & Directors' Information:- S B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200AP2015PTC097640

Company & Directors' Information:- U AND I TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200KA1997PTC022565

Company & Directors' Information:- A C L METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27320GJ2021PTC119845

Company & Directors' Information:- G T METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27100DL2011PTC220163

Company & Directors' Information:- A J METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC031650

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. W. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28910UP2011PTC043976

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26900MH1999PTC118353

Company & Directors' Information:- R. N. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100WB2007PTC116588

Company & Directors' Information:- A S D TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72501DL1996PTC078629

Company & Directors' Information:- V V TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300HR2008PTC037950

Company & Directors' Information:- B V METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100MH1983PTC030103

Company & Directors' Information:- J M S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC063471

Company & Directors' Information:- P M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27105MP1982PTC001915

Company & Directors' Information:- M R STEEL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100TG2013PTC088808

Company & Directors' Information:- S J B METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB1990PTC010910

Company & Directors' Information:- C 1 TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900KA2000PLC027594

Company & Directors' Information:- S W TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U74140DL1970PTC005326

Company & Directors' Information:- S B H METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1987PTC026766

Company & Directors' Information:- B A TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2012PLC143775

Company & Directors' Information:- J TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TZ2000PLC009315

Company & Directors' Information:- J N TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC050546

Company & Directors' Information:- C K STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29150WB1975PTC030259

Company & Directors' Information:- N & G. METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27300DL2007PTC168632

Company & Directors' Information:- J V D TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200MH2005PTC157334

Company & Directors' Information:- J K TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC108155

Company & Directors' Information:- A G METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC048897

Company & Directors' Information:- D C METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27200MH1998PTC117410

Company & Directors' Information:- I E M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900MH2008PTC187513

Company & Directors' Information:- A M Q STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27310UP2012PTC053823

Company & Directors' Information:- D. A. TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2008PTC173738

Company & Directors' Information:- K M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2006PTC150457

Company & Directors' Information:- D. L. TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC175475

Company & Directors' Information:- K STEEL & COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1991PTC053960

Company & Directors' Information:- M H METALS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27109CH1992PTC012615

Company & Directors' Information:- N S STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27106PB1980PTC004266

Company & Directors' Information:- K-7 TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200KA2001PTC028991

Company & Directors' Information:- S K METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27110TN1979PTC007954

Company & Directors' Information:- T & T TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U33112UP2001PTC026185

Company & Directors' Information:- R P J TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300UP1994PTC016135

Company & Directors' Information:- S J R S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2008PTC185244

Company & Directors' Information:- E M TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC141257

Company & Directors' Information:- L & Q TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200KA2015PTC082491

Company & Directors' Information:- M G METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999TN1987PTC014760

Company & Directors' Information:- D W TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50400HR2010PTC041610

Company & Directors' Information:- G S V TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300KA1999PTC026122

Company & Directors' Information:- Q S R TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999TN1997PTC039075

Company & Directors' Information:- V INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900TN2008PTC069066

Company & Directors' Information:- G N A METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000DL2009PTC194436

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG1999PTC032453

Company & Directors' Information:- R K H TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC106586

Company & Directors' Information:- S M K C S METALS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36999MH2011PTC218701

Company & Directors' Information:- M C A TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U73100MH2003PTC143446

Company & Directors' Information:- A 2 D TECHNOLOGIES (I) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120MH2010PTC208798

Company & Directors' Information:- V M B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TZ2009PTC015638

Company & Directors' Information:- J N S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG2011PTC076705

Company & Directors' Information:- M Y 5 TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300UP2010PTC039514

Company & Directors' Information:- V & T TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2013PTC199124

Company & Directors' Information:- V J TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300DL2007PTC163641

Company & Directors' Information:- E TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC106075

Company & Directors' Information:- W V TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2008PTC172293

Company & Directors' Information:- R C STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28112AS1980PTC001811

Company & Directors' Information:- U K TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31401DL1997PTC089598

Company & Directors' Information:- L B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900MH2000PTC124946

Company & Directors' Information:- F-7 TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900MH2008PTC182854

Company & Directors' Information:- K-TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900KL2006PTC019422

Company & Directors' Information:- M K G STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066480

Company & Directors' Information:- H B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U72200MH2000PTC130143

Company & Directors' Information:- S M R METALS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1979PTC009736

Company & Directors' Information:- S B M METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51420HR2014PTC052174

Company & Directors' Information:- J S R TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900PB2011PTC035189

Company & Directors' Information:- R V TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2007PTC053614

Company & Directors' Information:- V T S TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29309TN1996PLC036728

Company & Directors' Information:- R N TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900BR2013PTC021398

Company & Directors' Information:- P D STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC038426

Company & Directors' Information:- C A G TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52335PB2009PTC032939

Company & Directors' Information:- A K STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1961PTC003566

Company & Directors' Information:- A K G METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51420DL2000PTC107414

Company & Directors' Information:- C C METALS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27109PB1993PTC013823

Company & Directors' Information:- S R N TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300TN2007PTC065005

Company & Directors' Information:- V N TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900TN2006PTC061056

Company & Directors' Information:- H S P STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27100MH2013PTC242983

Company & Directors' Information:- H & S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900PY2009PTC002365

Company & Directors' Information:- R B R STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51103PB2013PTC037791

Company & Directors' Information:- K S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200PB2001PTC024628

Company & Directors' Information:- R L G METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109PB2004PTC027640

Company & Directors' Information:- METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27300MH1946PTC004882

Company & Directors' Information:- H D METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310MH2010PTC202262

Company & Directors' Information:- D H STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27109RJ2012PTC039742

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900PB2011PTC035133

Company & Directors' Information:- V M S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52392TN2004PTC054456

Company & Directors' Information:- K F A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300MH2013PTC239228

Company & Directors' Information:- K G N TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200MH2004PTC150227

Company & Directors' Information:- R A STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2014PTC253625

Company & Directors' Information:- B H TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74200MH2007PTC175126

Company & Directors' Information:- AT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900PN2007PTC130827

Company & Directors' Information:- P E TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900PN2010PTC137065

Company & Directors' Information:- M & B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TN2010PTC074938

Company & Directors' Information:- M & T TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG2010PTC071594

Company & Directors' Information:- A A S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74200TG2005PTC046996

Company & Directors' Information:- J K M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900TN2008PTC069232

Company & Directors' Information:- N R P TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900TG2009PTC064078

Company & Directors' Information:- R. W TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900UP2013PTC060078

Company & Directors' Information:- K G M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200JK2011PTC003300

Company & Directors' Information:- O S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900CH2013PTC034358

Company & Directors' Information:- V. B. METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310DL2007PTC170520

Company & Directors' Information:- N. V. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27310DL2009PTC186541

Company & Directors' Information:- P J METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112DL2012PTC233093

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28939DL2012PTC244467

Company & Directors' Information:- G R B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300DL2008PTC178561

Company & Directors' Information:- A V R TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2002PTC115232

Company & Directors' Information:- R T M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2002PTC117919

Company & Directors' Information:- H S E TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2006PTC144307

Company & Directors' Information:- T & A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2010PTC205207

Company & Directors' Information:- C R A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2011PTC215877

Company & Directors' Information:- M & A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2014PTC269962

Company & Directors' Information:- G S R TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC109145

Company & Directors' Information:- G D TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2014PTC264207

Company & Directors' Information:- P J METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100DL2012PTC233093

Company & Directors' Information:- H W B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900HR2008PTC038173

Company & Directors' Information:- A N D TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200KA2012PTC066768

Company & Directors' Information:- 3 I O I T TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900KA2011PTC060111

Company & Directors' Information:- A-1 TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31900GJ2012PTC068883

Company & Directors' Information:- B G TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40107GJ2009PTC056839

Company & Directors' Information:- V O D TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900KL2013PTC033304

Company & Directors' Information:- D N K TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200GJ2009PTC058147

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND 8 TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52392KL2003PTC016720

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1958PTC001309

Company & Directors' Information:- V R TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64202CH2000PTC023433

Company & Directors' Information:- A I D TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U31401DL1981PTC012421

Company & Directors' Information:- R B S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG2003PTC040858

Company & Directors' Information:- R K TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900CH2000PTC023550

Company & Directors' Information:- J T METALS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28997WB1976PTC030719

Company & Directors' Information:- O S METALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U13206RJ1999PTC015614

Company & Directors' Information:- S S K METALS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27200MH1981PTC024739

Company & Directors' Information:- F C TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2007PTC159296

Company & Directors' Information:- S R J TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2008PTC176517

Company & Directors' Information:- G TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29299GJ2001PTC039300

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1947PTC015981

Company & Directors' Information:- SIEMENS INDIA LTD. [Not available for efiling] CIN = U03390MH2000PLC990688

    FAO.(OS).(COMM). No. 125 of 2020

    Decided On, 03 November 2020

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

    For the Appellant: V. Lakshmikumaran, Charanya Lakshmikumaran, Puneeth Ganapathy, Ishita Mathur, Advocates. For the Respondent: P.C. Markanda, Senior Advocate, V.K. Sharma, Rajesh Markanda, Reema Soni, Advocates.



Judgment Text

CM APPL. 25565/2020 (for exemption)Sanjeev Narula, J.1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.2. The application is disposed of.CM APPL.25564/2020 (for condonation of delay)3. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 8 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.4. The application stands disposed of accordingly.FAO (OS) (COMM) 125/2020 & CM APPL. 25563/2020 (for Ad Interim stay)5. This is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as "A&C Act") read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 against the impugned final order and judgment dated 16th March, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the objections filed by the Appellant under Section 34 of the A&C Act against the arbitral award dated 15th October 2019, passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator have been dismissed. By way of the award, the claims of the Respondent have been allowed.Facts in brief:6. The facts have been noted and discussed at length both in the impugned judgment as well as the arbitral award. Therefore, for the disposal of the present appeal, we are noting only the bare essential facts, which are as follows: The Appellant, a Government of India undertaking, engaged in the business of inter alia manufacturing steel, awarded a contract for the setting up of a Coupled Pickling Line and Tandem Cold Mill at Bokaro Steel Plant to a consortium of M/s Siemens VAI Metals Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (now Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. and Respondent herein), M/s Siemens VAI Metal Technologies GmbH & Co, Austria and M/s McNally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. The parties entered into a contract bearing No. TC/M/AGT-963 on 3rd March, 2008, which specified the project commencement date as 3rd March, 2008 and the date of completion as 3rd September, 2010. The contract envisaged that Respondent would procure the items, as set out in the contract, from such manufacturers as identified by the Appellant and that the price of each item would include a) Basic Price, b) Excise Duty (ED) and c) Central Sales Tax (CST). The contract consisted of a summary price schedule which delineates the total amount chargeable by the Respondent and the minimum guaranteed CENVAT credit to be paid by the Respondent to the Appellant as Rs.33,06,70,252/-. During the continuation of the work under the contract, Respondent raised invoices seeking inter alia reimbursement of the input sales tax paid on purchases and of sales tax paid by sub-contractors/vendors, while executing the contractual work. The CENVAT credit passed on to the Appellant was Rs.19,70,32,185/-, as against the guaranteed amount of Rs.33,06,70,252/-. The Appellant refused to make any payment to the Respondent until necessary documents were submitted by the latter to confirm that the entire guaranteed amount towards CENVAT credit would be passed on to the Appellant. The Appellant claimed that in terms of the price schedule as set out in the contract, it was entitled to deduct the shortfall in CENVAT credit from the net contract price at serial No. 15 of the summary price schedule. On the other hand, Respondent's stance was that the deductions to the extent of shortfall in CENVAT credit could only be made from the gross contract price at serial No. 12 and not from the net contract price at serial No. 15. In view of the opposing stances taken by the parties, the Respondent invoked arbitration and the matter was referred to an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator.7. The final award dated 15th October, 2019, was passed in favour of the Respondent, allowing all their claims. The concluding portion of the arbitral award reads as under:“102. In the result,(a) the claim of the principal amount Rs.2,82,73,811.35/- by way of reimbursement of CST is allowed. The sum of Rs.92,16,537.03/-, already paid by the Respondent on being adjusted against this amount, the Claimant is entitled to the payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,90,56,702.38/- together with interest thereon @ 14% per annum, from the date on which it had fallen due in terms of Clause 12.1.6 of the GCC, till the date of actual payment. The counter claim of the Respondent for Rs.92,16,537.03/- is rejected.(b) the Claimant's claim of the principal amount Rs.6,66,13,750/- against its RA Bill No. 34 dated 04.09.2015 is allowed, together with interest thereon @ 14% per annum from 23.10.2015 till 12.04.2019. Further, the Claimant is also entitled to interest @ 14% per annum on the balance principal amount of Rs.5,93,64,168/- from 12.04.2019 till the date of actual payment. The counter claim of the Respondent for Rs.5,01,47,637/- is rejected.(c) the Claimant's claim of the principal amount of Rs.1,07,75,482.06/- against its RA Bill No. 43 dated 20.03.2017 is allowed together with interest @ 14% per annum thereon from 04.05.2017 till 05.12.2018. Further, the Claimant is also entitled to interest @ 14% per annum on the balance principal amount of Rs.2.93,293.29/- from 05.12.2018 till the date of actual payment.(d) costs as above.”8. The award was assailed by filing objections under Section 34 of A&C Act. However, after considering the contractual terms between the parties, the learned Single Judge did not find any merit in the contentions urged by the Appellant. Further, following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in numerous judgments, relating to the extremely narrow scope of interference for exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the A&C Act, the learned Single Judge dismissed the objections and upheld the award, except to the extent that the awarded costs were reduced to 50% and further, the interest rate was reduced from 14% to 10%.Contentions of the parties9. Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that both the award and the impugned judgment are patently erroneous as they overlook the settled principles of law governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The award and the impugned judgment are in conflict with public policy, having rewritten the terms of the General Conditions of Contract (hereinafter referred as "GCC"), rendering important clauses of the GCC nugatory, thus, violating fundamental policy and basic notions of justice. He further argued that the reasoning in the impugned judgment and the award detrimentally impacts the public exchequer and deserves to be set aside. The award is patently illegal as is manifest by a bare perusal of Arbitrator's reasoning or the lack thereof. Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran further referred to Clause 14.5.6 of the GCC and argued that the said clause is unambiguous and its plain and literal meaning indicates that 'in case of any shortfall' in the minimum guaranteed CENVAT credit, 'the shortfall shall be deducted by the employer' [Appellant]. There are no exceptions or contingencies provided for in the said clause to avoid recovery of shortfall in the minimum guaranteed CENVAT credit. The above clause must be given literal interpretation and the learned Arbitrator ought to have considered what this clause literally states. The learned Arbitrator has given an irrational and arbitrary interpretation to the plain and unambiguous words of the clause and thereby defeated the intent of the parties.10. Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran also referred to the impugned award, relevant portion whereof is extracted hereinbelow:“69.........The tax liability of the Employer/Respondent, in any case, does not get altered by the variation in the guaranteed CENVAT credit figure. For example, if in a project, the tax liability of the Employer is Rs.1 crore and the minimum guaranteed CENVAT credit as declared by the Contractor is Rs.50 lakhs, and there is no shortfall in that amount, the Employer would avail the benefit of the CENVAT credit and reimburse the Contractor to this extent. However, the Employer would still be required to pay the balance Rs.50 lakhs to the Govt. in discharge of its overall tax liability in the project. In case, there is a shortfall of Rs.20 lakhs, the Employer would avail CENVAT credit of that amount and would reimburse the Contractor to that extent. In such a case, in discharge of its total tax liability, the Employer would be required to pay balance Rs.70 lakhs to the Govt. In the event of the CENVAT credit availed is higher than Rs.50 lakhs, say Rs.70 lakhs, the Employer would have to pay the balance amount of Rs.30 lakhs to the Govt., reimburse Rs.50 lakhs to the Contractor and share the excess of Rs.20 lakhs in the ratio of 50:50 with the Contractor. In any case, therefore, by the shortfall in the declared minimum guaranteed CENVAT credit, the Employer does not suffer any loss or prejudice vis-a-vis its tax liability. This assumes significance in the facts of this case as well, in view of absence of any complaint or allegation by the Respondent about lack of quality in the supplies or workmanship in the execution of the project In any case, the Respondent, has failed to demonstrate before this Tribunal, profit, if any, it would have earned had there been no shortfall in the minimum guaranteed CENVAT credit or loss it has suffered in view of the shortfall. To reiterate, it has also failed to demonstrate unassailingly, that the Claimant had earned profit due to such shortfall. In the above conspectus, the imputation of the Claimant that the withholding of the payment of its RA Bill No. 34 on the purported ground of shortfall in the Minimum Guaranteed Amount of CENVAT Credit tantamounts to attempted double deduction to its prejudice cannot be brushed aside as wholly unfounded."He submitted that the aforesaid extract makes it evident that the learned Arbitrator has decided the issue on an erroneous presumption that since the shortfall amount has not been collected from the Appellant, it has suffered no loss on that account. He submitted that this is factually incorrect, and the Respondent has in fact collected this shortfall, albeit not in the garb of CENVAT credit. He submitted that in any event, there was no such condition of 'no loss' laid down in Clause 14.5.6 for making a deduction from recovery of shortfall in minimum guaranteed CENVAT credit.11. Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran further argued that, undisputedly there was a shortfall in the minimum guaranteed CENVAT credit to the tune of Rs. 5,01,47,631/- and thus, the Appellant has justifiably deducted this amount from Respondent's bills in terms of Clause 14.5.6 of GCC and the summary price schedule. Instead of upholding the deductions, the learned Arbitrator and the learned Single Judge have denied and nullified the Appellant's right to make deductions as per Clause 14.5.6. He further argued that rewriting of Clause 14.5.6 is contrary to the intention of the parties, contractual terms, and the provisions of law. The note at the bottom of the summary price schedule does not dilute the deductions under Clause 14.5.6 and the learned Arbitrator has relied upon incorrect assumptions of crucial facts. Clause 14.5.6 serves to protect the public exchequer by ensuring that the Contractor-Respondent is not enriched beyond the agreed net price mandated under Clause 11.2.1, however the same has been nullified by the learned Arbitrator.12. Per contra, Mr. P.C. Markanda, learned Senior Counsel appearing on advance notice on behalf of the Respondent, supported the award passed by the learned Arbitrator and impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and argued that the scope of the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 37 is extremely limited and none of the grounds urged by the Appellant are worthy of consideration. He submitted that accepting the contentions of the Appellant would amount to the Court enforcing its opinion on the interpretation of the terms of the contract which is not permissible in view of the settled law that it is the Arbitrator alone who has the jurisdiction to decide questions relating to interpretation of terms of the contract. Mr. Markanda further argued that terms of the contract are crystal clear. The clauses unequivocally provide that the shortfall of CENVAT credit must be adjusted from the gross contract price at serial No. 12 and not from the net contract price at serial No. 15. The Appellant could not arbitrarily and unilaterally elect to deduct the same from the net contract price and, therefore, the view taken by the learned Arbitrator as upheld by the learned Single Judge warrants no interference by this Court.Analysis and findings13. At the outset we wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Markanda that the jurisdiction of this Court while exercising appellate power to review the judgment of the learned Single Judge that decides the objections under Section 34 of the A&C Act, is extremely limited. As an Appellate Court, we would be inclined to intervene only in a situation wherein there is a manifest or patent error in the award and the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We would not like to substitute our opinion even if there is another plausible view then what has been taken by the learned Single Judge at the first instance. The Supreme Court in the case of Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, 215 (2014) DLT 204 (SC)=X (2014) SLT 73=(2015) 3 SCC 49, has elaborately laid down the scope of jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with the arbitral award while exercising power under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The Supreme Court had observed that only the grounds specifically provided in Section 34 of the A &C Act can be relied upon to interfere with an arbitral award and held that the Court would be justified in interfering with the merits of the award only when it is purported to be in conflict with the public policy of India. The Court also considered different types of heads falling under the scope of 'public policy' in India, which inter alia includes patent illegality. It was further observed that the Arbitral Tribunal must decide the dispute between the parties in terms of the contract and the construction of the terms of the contract is primarily for an Arbitrator to decide and must not be interfered with, unless the Arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that it could be said to be something that no fair minded or reasonable person could do. In the said judgment, the Court has further observed that when a Court is applying the 'public policy' test to an arbitral award , it does not act as a Court of appeal and consequently errors of fact cannot be corrected. A possible view by the Arbitrator on facts must necessarily pass muster as the Arbitrator is the ultimate master of the quantity and quality of evidence to be relied upon when he delivers his arbitral award. The abovementioned view of the Supreme Court in Associate Builders (supra) was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Parsa Kente Collieries Limited v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, V (2019) SLT 562=AIR 2019 SC 2908. Thus, applying the law as laid down by the Supreme Court, while exercising jurisdiction as an Appellate Court, we have to, therefore, examine if the learned Single Judge has exceeded its jurisdiction while deciding the objections under Section 34 of the A&C Act.14. On a reading of the impugned judgment, we find that the only contentions urged by the Appellant were with respect to the interpretation and giving effect to the terms of the contract. As per Clause 14.5.6 of the GCC, the Respondent was liable to provide the Appellant the 'Minimum Guaranteed CENVAT Credit' as mentioned in the contract. The Appellant was entitled to deduct the shortfall in the credit, if any, from the Total Contract Price charged from it. There is undisputedly a shortfall in minimum guaranteed credit of approximately Rs. 5 crores. Appellant deducted this amount against the running bills. Respondent contended that this was contrary to the terms of the contract and deductions could only be made against the gross contract price which according to them had indeed been done and therefore, deductions against the running bills was impermissible. Thus, the principal controversy before the learned Arbitrator and also the learned Single Judge, pertained to the deduction of shortfall in the CENVAT credit i.e., whether the Appellant was entitled to deduct the amount due from the gross contract price or the net contract price. The opposing stances of the parties gave rise to disputes that squarely fell within the domain of interpretation of the terms of the contract. This aspect is precisely and exclusively within the realm of the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and law on this issue is no longer res integra, as has been summarized in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran, III (2012) SLT 388=II (2012) CLT 187 (SC)=(2012) 5 SCC 306, as follows:“43. In any case, assuming that Clause 9.3 was capable of two interpretations, the view taken by the arbitrator was clearly a possible if not a plausible one. It is not possible to say that the arbitrator had travelled outside his jurisdiction, or that the view taken by him was against the terms of contract. That being the position, the High Court had no reason to interfere with the award and substitute its view in place of the interpretation accepted by the arbitrator.44. The legal position in this behalf has been summarised in para 18 of the judgment of this Court in SAIL v. Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd. [(2009) 10 SCC 63: (2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 16] and which has been referred to above. Similar view has been taken later in Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. v. ONGC Ltd. [(2010) 11 SCC 296: (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 459] to which one of us (Gokhale, J.) was a party. The observations in para 43 thereof are instructive in this behalf.45. This para 43 reads as follows: (Sumitomo case [(2010) 11 SCC 296 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 459] , SCC p. 313) “43. ... The umpire has considered the fact situation and placed a construction on the clauses of the agreement which according to him was the correct one. One may at the highest say that one would have preferred another construction of Clause 17.3 but that cannot make the award in any way perverse. Nor can one substitute one's own view in such a situation, in place of the one taken by the umpire, which would amount to sitting in appeal. As held by this Court in Kwality Mfg. Corpn. v. Central Warehousing Corpn. [(2009) 5 SCC 142 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 406] the Court while considering challenge to arbitral award does not sit in appeal over the findings and decision of the arbitrator, which is what the High Court has practically done in this matter. The umpire is legitimately entitled to take the view which he holds to be the correct one after considering the material before him and after interpreting the provisions of the agreement. If he does so, the decision of the umpire has to be accepted as final and binding.”(Emphasis supplied)15. The learned Arbitrator after analysing the entire terms of the contract and the evidence on record categorically concluded that the deduction could be made only from the gross contract price referred to at serial No. 12. The learned Single Judge has carefully examined the observations of the learned Arbitrator in this regard and did not find any infirmity with the same. The Court concluded that the only logical interpretation of the phrase 'contract price' for the purpose of Clause 14.5.6 is that any deduction on account of shortfall viz. the minimum guaranteed CENVAT credit had to be made from the gross contract price at serial No. 12 and not from the net contract price at serial No. 15. The findings of the learned Single Judge on this point are reproduced hereinbelow:“17. Upon a perusal of the relevant clauses, more specifically Clause 14.5.6 of the contract, I find that the contract specifically envisages that in case of any shortfall in the CENVAT credit as against the minimum guaranteed CENVAT Credit, the same shall be deductible from the amount payable to the contractor. However, since this clause does not specify the amount from which the said shortfall would be deductible, the answer to this quandary lies in the note at the bottom of the summary price schedule appended to the contract. A plain reading of this note makes it evident that the only logical interpretation of the phrase 'contract price' for the purpose of Clause 14.5.6 of the contract is that any deduction on account of shortfall viz. the guaranteed CENVAT credit had to be made from the gross contract price at serial No. 12 and not from the net contract price at serial No. 15.18. In the light of this position, I find no merit in Mr. Sethi's primary contention that the sum of Rs.5,01,47,631/- towards the admitted shortfall in CENVAT credit was required to be deducted from the net contract price mentioned at serial No. 15 of the summary price schedule and not from the gross contract price mentioned at serial No. 12 thereof. In fact, the petitioner's submission that a deduction from the gross contract price at serial No. 12 also contemplated deduction from the net contract price at serial No. 15 is in the teeth of the plain language employed in the contract.19. I find that the learned Arbitrator has, after considering the summary price schedule as also the terms of the contract, come to a categorical conclusion that the deduction could be made only from the gross contract price referred to at serial No. 12. Thus, I have no hesitation in concurring with the findings of the learned Arbitrator that any shortfall in the CENVAT credit payable by the Respondent, could be recovered only by making requisite deductions from the gross contract price mentioned at serial No. 12 of the summary price schedule.”16. On the second issue regarding the reimbursement of CST paid by the Respondent's sub-contractors/vendors, the learned Single Judge has independently and objectively examined the terms of the contract as is evident from the extracted portion of the impugned judgment.“20. The petitioner's challenge to the learned Arbitrator's directions with respect to reimbursement of the CST paid by the Respondent's sub- contractors/vendors to the Respondent is equally meritless. I find that the learned Arbitrator has, after examining Clause 14.1 of the contract, concluded that the price agreed upon between the parties clearly includes all taxes to be reimbursed to the Respondent. Therefore, merely because some input taxes were not paid directly by the Respondent but by its sub- contractors/vendors in respect of goods used in the execution of the contract, the same could not be a ground for the petitioner to refuse reimbursement thereof to the Respondent.21. It is thus evident that the learned Arbitrator has, after interpreting the various clauses of the contracts, including clause 14.1 of the GCC, arrived at a categorical conclusion that the Respondent was entitled to reimbursement of the CST paid by its sub-contractors/vendors, with which conclusion I find no reason to interfere. Even otherwise, when the findings of an award rest on an interpretation of the provisions of the contract between the parties, the Court, while examining the award under Section 34 of the Act, cannot interfere with the same, even if another interpretation is possible.”The learned Single Judge has held that the price agreed upon by the parties includes all taxes to be reimbursed to the Respondent, and merely because some input taxes were not paid directly by the Respondent but by its sub-contractors/vendors in respect of the goods used in the execution of the contract, would not be a tenable ground for the Appellant to refuse reimbursement thereof to the Respondent.17. We do not find any perversity in the afore-noted analysis and conclusion. We also cannot say that the learned Arbitrator has travelled beyond his jurisdiction or has taken a view contrary to the terms of the contract or rewritten the terms of the contract, as Mr. Lakshmikumaran has sought to put it. We cannot substitute our opinion in place of the interpretation given by the learned Arbitrator. Mr. Lakshmikumaran repeatedly urged that the Appellant has no problem with respect to the observations of the learned Arbitrator regarding the deduction to be made. He submitted that as long as deductions are held to be permissible, irrespective of the amount against which the same are to be made viz. gross contract price or net contract price, Appellant would be satisfied with the findings. He urged that the Court must clarify this aspect. This submission of Mr. Lakshmikumaran gives the impression that the learned Arbitrator has not permitted any deduction at all. We may note that this contention was not advanced before the learned Single Judge and therefore we cannot permit the Appellant to urge the same at this stage. Secondly, the findings and observations of the learned Arbitrator, paint an entirely different picture which contradicts the stand of the Appellant. The learned Arbitrator has observed that the Respondent herein (Claimant) had alleged that the Appellant herein (Respondent) did not pay the shortfall amount of Rs. 5.03 crores of CENVAT credit to it in the first place which amounts to deduction from the total contract price and besides the Appellant has also withheld the said amount from its RA Bill Nos. 34 and 43. The finding of the Tribunal on this issue is as under :“68. It is not denied by the Respondent in its pleadings, that the Total Contract Price has been reduced by the shortfall amount of Rs.5,01,47,637/- as contemplated by the 'Note' appended to the Summary Price Schedule.......”(Emphasis supplied)Thus, the case of Respondent herein has always been that the shortfall amount of Rs.5.03 crores has already been deducted from the total contract price and, therefore, it cannot be withheld from its bills as it would amount to double enrichment.18. Further, when we put it to Mr. Lakshmikumaran to point out if it had been pleaded anywhere that an adjustment on shortfall of CENVAT credit has not been permitted at all, he was unable to draw our attention to any particular pleading to that effect. On the other hand, Mr. Markanda categorically stated that it was the admitted position of the Appellant that adjustment on shortfall of CENVAT credit had been permitted and our attention was drawn to para 73 of the Award which reads as under:“73. A brief reference to the evidence on record would be additionally advantageous. The Claimant's witness, CW-1, in his cross-examination, reaffirmed that the Respondent had paid/reimbursed the Claimant Rs,19,70,32,185/- on account of CENVAT and not Rs. 28,05,22,621/-. He also deposed, that the guaranteed amount of CENVAT credit may vary, depending upon the prevailing rate of tax/duty and procurement price and that the amount of CENVAT credit is a notional amount. He stated that the amount of CENVAT credit could vary, from Rs,33,06,70,252/- based on the rate of tax/duty and procurement price. In reply to Question No. 18 in cross-examination, that if the quantity of materials used varies from the quantity envisaged in the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

billing schedule submitted by the Claimant, whether the guaranteed amount of CENVAT credit would also vary, the witness replied that the factor of variance between the envisaged quantity and actual quantity, would be taken care of in the procurement price factor.The Respondent's witness, RW-1, in reply to Question No. 44, in his cross-examination, admitted that the amount of Rs.19,70,32,185/- had been availed by the Respondent as CENVAT credit and that it had also reimbursed the said amount to the Claimant. The witness also admitted that, against Rs.19,70,32,185/-, the adjusted CENVAT credit had been computed by the Respondent at Rs.28,05,22,621/- by giving effect to tax variation Clause 14.6. The witness answered in the affirmative to the question, whether the minimum guaranteed CENVAT amount mentioned in the Summary Price Schedule of the Contract was not a firm amount and was subject to positive or negative variations depending upon the prevalent rate of tax/duty. The witness also admitted, that Rs.5.01 crores had not been paid to the Claimant, as documents with regard thereto were not provided by it.In answer to Question No. 55 in his cross-examination to the effect as to what was the loss sustained by the Respondent on account of non-submission of documents relating to minimum guaranteed CENVAT credit, the witness could not offer any comment with regard thereto. The witness also admitted that after December, 2015, a number of reconciliation meetings between the Claimant and the Respondent had been held. He stated that the Respondent could not release the payment of the RA Bills No. 34 and 43, as shortfall in minimum guaranteed CENVAT was recoverable and the Claimant had agreed to produce more documents to reduce the shortfall. In answer to Question No. 63, in his cross-examination to the effect that the Respondent could not have withheld any amount from Claimant's RA Bills on account of shortfall in minimum guaranteed CENVAT, the witness admitted that the agreement did not provide stages at which shortfall of minimum guaranteed CENVAT could be recovered and as the Respondent had only these two bills of the Claimant available, payments thereof were withheld pending reconciliation of shortfall of minimum guaranteed CENVAT.74. It is thus apparent from a complete analysis of the materials on record, that though not authorized, by the Contract Agreement and the GCC, the Respondent withheld the payment of the RA Bill No. 34 dated 04.09.2015 along with RA Bill No. 43 dated 08.06.2017, on the ground that the shortfall in the declared minimum guaranteed CENVAT was recoverable therefrom.”(Emphasis supplied)Having said that, we would not like to be drawn into this controversy as, the contention being urged before us was clearly never raised before the learned Single Judge, and the same is evident from a reading of the impugned judgment.19. In view of the foregoing, the present appeal and the accompanying stay application is dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed.
O R