arbp919-10.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.919 OF 2010 M/s.Hindustan Batteries & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Tata Motors Ltd. .. Respondent Ms.K.S.Shinde for petitioner CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 9th FEBRUARY 2011. P.C.: 1] Heard learned Counsel for petitioner. 2] The petitioner is the original respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal. The respondent TATA Motors is the original claimants. Tata Motors made a claim on the respondent for breaches of the agreement between petitioner and respondent. The petitioner raised a counter claim therein. Petitioner’s counter claim has been awarded to the extent of Rs. 14,89,529/-. The total sum under this counter claim was for Rs. 39,62,789/-. 3] Learned Arbitrator awarded liquidated damages in favour of arbp919-10.doc 2 the respondent – original claimant to the extent of Rs.10 lakhs and rejected rest of the claim of the respondent. It is contended that the Arbitrator should have awarded the entire claim amount. My attention is invited to the agreement and particularly the terms thereof and it is contended that the petitioner has complied with the same, inasmuch as, as a marketing agency the details were forwarded and it was for the service provider i.e. Tata Motors to take necessary decision. 4] My attention is invited to clause 2 of the agreement and it has been urged that the petitioner as a service provider was to explore and promote the potential market and forward details of the potential customers, which has been done and relevant documents were also provided. Therefore, the arbitrator was in error in holding that the Counter claim of the petitioner is not proved in its entirety. 5] I am unable to accept this contention. The Sole Arbitrator has rendered a fair award on the basis of the documents and on the basis of the materials produced. The Arbitral Tribunal has found that the original claimants were unable to justified their claim of Rs.87,44,105/- including of Rs.10 lakhs towards liquidated damages. The Arbitrator has held that arbp919-10.doc 3 there is no dispute with regard to execution of the agreement dated 25th April 2006. It is also held on the basis of the materials produced that the respondent original claimant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as liquidated damages and for the balance, there is no satisfactory proof. 6] After the Arbitral Tribunal has concluded that the petitioner as Service Provider has sourced several contracts out of which there were defaults and/or non payment in 10 contracts for negligence and/or violation of the terms and conditions of the contract of the respondent but loss for non payment cannot be recovered from the Service Provider, the sum of Rs.10 lakhs only has been awarded to the original claimant – respondent before me. Since the original claimant confirmed that the petitioner is entitled to receive Rs.40,89,529/- the counter claim has been awarded to that extent. Naturally the entire counter claim cannot be awarded after the findings that are recorded in paras 22 to 24 of the impugned award. The attempt before me is to have re-appraisal and re- appreciation of the materials produced and the grounds as raised in the petition are in the realm of the same. In my limited jurisdiction, I cannot undertake this exercise particularly because I am of the opinion that the Arbitrator has not committed any perversity in rendering these findings. arbp919-10.doc 4 He has referred to different documents produced and in the light of the obligations of the parties under the agreement, awarded the sums as determined and indicated in the Award. No costs. 7] I am of the opinion that there is no case made out for interference with the subject award under any of the grounds and the provisions viz., section 34(1) and (2) of the Arbitration Act. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)