1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.409 OF 2006 Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. ... Petitioner vs. Jindal Drilling & Industries Ltd. ... Respondent --- Mr.P.A.Sawant with Rafee P., Prakash Shinde i/b. M.Dhruva & Co., for Petitioner. Mr.V.R.Rambhadran, for Respondent. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH,J. DATED: 9th October,2006 P.C.:- 1. By this petition, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. which is a public body challenges the well considered award made by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal has held that the petitioner is not entitled to recover ground rent from the respondent. The Arbitral Tribunal has considered the relevant clauses of the contract which 2 make the respondent liable to pay ground rent if respondent fails to remove its material from Jetty no.5 within 15 days of receiving notice from the petitioner. The petitioner was claiming recovery of ground from 18.4.1996 till 23.5.2000. The Arbitral Tribunal has held that this ground rent has been claimed without serving Fifteen days notice as required by the Contract and therefore, recovery made against the ground rent is not valid. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted before me that the Arbitral Tribunal has not considered that the notice dated 24.3.1998 was not served on the respondent asking respondent to remove the material. As the material was not removed within 15 days, liability to pay ground rent started. In paragraph (7) of the statement of claim the respondent has stated thus:- “The Respondents by their letter dated 20th December,2000 intimated that they had issued a letter on 24th March,1998 for removal of tubulors in terms of notice covering the ground rent as per clause 4.1(e). The Claimants had not received any such notice of letter dated 24th March,1998 and the said letter was also not enclosed as intimated in the Respondents letter dated 20th December,2000.” The case of the respondent was that the petitioner is claiming its entitlement to the ground rent because of the letter dated 24.3.1998, but the letter dated 24.3.1998 is not received by the respondent. 3 Paragraph (7) of the statement of claim has been replied to by the petitioner by paragraph (19) of its written statement. Paragraph (19) reads as under:- “With reference to paragraph 7 of the statement of claim, the Respondents say and submit that the notice dated 24th March,1998 had been duly served on the Claimants.” It clear from paragraph (19) of the written statement quoted above that the petitioner was positively claiming that letter dated 24.3.1998 was duly served on the respondent. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, however, is not in a position to point out me any evidence led by the petitioner either documentary or oral to show that the petitioner proved that the letter dated 24.3.1998 has been duly served by the petitioner on the respondent. In the absence of proof that letter dated 24.3.1998 was duly served on the respondent, I do not find any any fault with the findings recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal that in the absence of establishing that 15 days' notice as contemplated by the terms of the contract was duly served by the petitioner on the respondent, the petitioner is not entitled to any ground rent. 2. Then it was argued before me that in any case under 4 clause 4.1(d) the petitioner is entitled to claim ground rent on expiry of period of 30 days from the date when the material lands on the property of the petitioner. Therefore, I asked the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner to point out from its written statement that such contention has been raised before the Arbitral Tribunal. The learned Counsel could not point out any contention raised before the Arbitral Tribunal on the basis of the provisions of clause 4.1(d) of the contract. In any case, there is no ground to be found in the petition that though the contention based on clause 4.1(d) of the contract was urged before the Arbitral Tribunal, the Arbitral Tribunal has not considered and has not decided the same. Then it was claimed that in any case as the goods of the respondent are placed on the property belonging to the petitioner, the petitioner in any case is entitled to claim ground rent. Perusal of paragraph (20) of the written statement shows that such a contention was raised in the reply. But perusal of the Award shows that such a contention was not urged before the Arbitral Tribunal. In any case there is no ground to be found in the petition that the contention that in any case because the respondent used the property of the petitioner for keeping its material it is liable to pay ground rent, was argued before the Arbitral Tribunal but the Arbitral Tribunal has not considered it. It is obvious that in the absence of such a ground raised in the petition, the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue. In any case, the contention is without any substance because so 5 far as the aspect of payment of ground rent it is specifically covered by clause 4.1(e) of the contract between the parties. That clause makes respondent liable to pay ground rent on failure of respondent to remove the material within 15 days from receipt of notice from the petitioner. Incorporation of this clause will negate the possibility of there being any liability on the respondent to pay the ground rent in any other situation. 3. Thus, I found that the Award has been made by the Arbitral Tribunal after duly considering the material that was produced before the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal has referred to the contentions of the petitioner in detail and has made the Award, and there is virtually no ground for challenging the Award, still not only public money was wasted in filing this petition but valuable time of the Court was also wasted. The petitioner is therefore, liable for imposition of exemplary costs. The petition is therefore, disposed of. The petitioner is directed to pay as and by way of costs of this petition Rs.25,000/- to the respondent. Payment of cost be made within a period of two weeks from today. ---