1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 433 OF 2009 Union of India through Directorate of Supplies & Disposals, Directorate General of Supplies & Disposals New CGO Bldg. 5Th & 6th Floor, S.W. Wing, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020. ...Petitioner. Vs. M/s. Madhur Enterprises (P) Ltd. 47/65, Swadeshi Bazar, General Ganj, Kanpur – 208 001 (U.P.) ...Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Petitioner. Mr. Rakesh K. Singh for the Respondent. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :-11th SEPTEMBER, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT- 1 Heard finally, by consent. 2 The Petitioner has challenged the impugned award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) basically considering the fact that the clauses/ terms and conditions once offered, 2 accepted and accordingly parties proceeded, just cannot be changed unilaterally. The Petitioner wanted to change the same which was objected. There is nothing to show that the agreed clause was illegal or contrary to the law. Considering this, the reasoning given in para 8.15, which is, “8.15 I am of the opinion that the Claimant is correct and his claim is justified for the following reasons: (i) the Claimant made the offer of Rs.368/- each for Bleached and Rs.370/- for Dyed which was inclusive of Excise Duty and Respondent had accepted in same term by issuing advance contract on 1.4.2004 upon the Claimant. The advance contract concludes the contract as per DGS&D-68(Revised) as applicable as held in Gupta Textiles Vs. UOI (2001) (1) ALR (ii) once the contract is conclude the same cannot be unilaterally changed by any party. (iii) The Claimant did not accept this change of price by the Respondent. (iv) There was no negotiation done by the parties for change of rate after conclusion of contract on 1.4.2004 and there was no novation of terms of contract any time. (v) The Respondent’s reply in para 6 of counter statement may not apply to the formation of contract. (vi) The Respondent having accepted the offer of the Claimant can not plead that they could reject the offer of the Claimant. (vii) The Claimant has claimed interest on the basis of Small Scale Industries and relied on the Interest On Delayed Payment to Small Scale & Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act, 1993 and The Micro & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and the judgments of AIR 2006 SC 131 (Assam Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. J.D. Pharmaceuticals & U another), 2005 (1) Raj 495 Delhi Jal Board Vs. Subhash Pipes Ltd. and for claiming 18% interest p.a. (2003) (2) ALR 195 (Godrej Properties & Investment Ltd. Vs. Tripura Constructions Ltd. (Mumbai) where 18% interest was held to be reasonable.” in my view, need no interference. 2 With regard to the rate of 15% interest, considering the fact that the Respondent is a Small Scale Industries and as the interest payable would 3 be in view of Interest On Delayed Payment under Section 6 of the Small Scale & Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act, 1993 (as amended in 1998) which permits interest 5 point more than the prime landing rates notified by the Bank. Therefore, also no interference. (Delhi Jal Board Vs. Shubhas Pipes Ltd. & Ors., CDJ, 2006, DHC, 1404), Assam State Electricity Board, Guwahati Vs. R.N. Dutta, AIR 2009, Gauhati 117. There was no other challenge raised. 3 There is no illegality and perversity in the impugned award. 4 Resultantly, the Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)