. / r 2~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS{OS) 189/2011 & I.A.Nos.7545 & 8412/2011 M/S K.C P LIMITED Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sanjeev Anand, Advocate versus M/S C.C.I LIMITED Defendant Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta and Mr. Rahul MangIa, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI ORDER % 20.09.2011 These are objections preferred by the Cement Corporation of India Ltd (C.C.I) & M/s. KCP Ltd (KCP) under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the unanimous award passed by Mr. Justice Rajindar Sachar (Retd.) and Mr. Justice S. Ranganathan (Retd.) dated 23.12.2010. By the impugned award, apart from allowing one J claim of KCP towards balance payment due, amounting to Rs. 9.37 lakhs, the learned Arbitrators have directed the return of the bank guarantees after cancellation. The plaintiff,KCP was awarded the contract by C.C.I whereunder works were to be carried out at two locations i.e at Delhi and Bhatinda. The plaintiff had to set up grinding units at the two locations. Admittedly the grinding unit at Bhatinda was abandoned by Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified C_ - 'V C.C.I. Disputes arose between the partiesVbd each of them accused for delays and defaults by the other party. The learned Arbitrators, by their detailed award have returned the findings of fact after examination of the evidence placed before them that the delays and defaults were on either side. The learned Arbitrators have primarily rejected all the claims of both the parties and allowed the aforesaid claim of Rs.9.37 lakhs on the basis of a joint statement made before them. As aforesaid they have directed return of the KCP's bank , guarantees after cancellation. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The submission of Mr. Tiku, learned senior counsel for C.C.I is that on account of the delays on the part of the contractor KCP, the C.C.I was entitled to levy liquidated damages. This proposition has been rejected by the learned Arbitrators as the C.C.I was not able to establish, as a matter of fact, sufferance of any damage. No evidence/proof was furnished by CCI to support its claim before the tribunal. No other objection has been ^ argued by eitherof the parties. / The award made by the learned Arbitrators is extremely detailed and reasoned. The findings of fact returned by the Tribunal are findings which cannot be interfered with, except in exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal is not shown to have not considered the evidence produced before it. There is apparently no misconduct on the part ofthe Tribunal in making the impugnedaward. Accordingly,Ifind no merit in either of these applications and they are accordingly rejected. I find the learned Arbitrators have awarded 12% per annum w.e.f. 01.02.2011 till the date of actual payment and the return of the five bank guarantees submitted by KCP. Considering the prevalent rates of interest, the rate of interest is reduced from 12% per annum to 9% per annum. The award, as modified, is accordingly made a Rule of the Court and a decree is passed in terms of the modified award. SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 as VIPIN SANGHIJ