Delhi District Court M/S Bhatia Engineering Company vs M/S Cochin Shipyard Ltd on 6 March, 2021 IN THE COURT OF SH GURVINDER PAL SINGH, DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)02, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI OMP (COMM.) No. 179/2019 M/s Bhatia Engineering Company 6, DSIIDC Complex, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Delhi110095 ...Petitioner vs M/s Cochin Shipyard Ltd. (A Govt. of India Undertaking) Administrative Building, Perumanoor PO Kochin682015 ....Respondent Date of Institution : 28/09/2019 Arguments concluded on : 06/02/2021 Decided on : 06/03/2021 Appearances : Sh. Prem Kumar, Ld. Counsel for petitioner. Sh. Kartik S.D, Ld. Counsel for respondent. JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner has filed the present objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred as The Act) against the impugned arbitral award dated 09/03/2019 passed by Ld. Senior Advocate/Ld. Sole Arbitrator Sh. Rajiv Dutta in case Reference No. DAC/1623/D/0317 and delivered to petitioner on 10/07/2019. By the impugned arbitral award, Ld. Sole Arbitrator held issue nos. 1 to 5 in favour of the claimant/petitioner and issue nos. 6 to 10 in favour of the respondent. Also was held by Ld. Sole Arbitrator that the claim laid by the claimant/petitioner fails, which was rejected. 2. Following are the issues framed by Ld. Sole Arbitrator: Issue No. 1 Whether the claimant's registration with National Small Inds. Corporation (NSIC) on 15.01.2007 is sufficient and or entitle the claimant to be covered under the provisions of Micro, Small and OMP (COMM.) No. 179/2019 M/s Bhatia Engineering Company vs. M/s Cochin Shipyard Ltd. Page 1 of 36 Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006?OPC. Issue No. 2 Whether the claim is barred by limitation?OPR. Issue No. 3 Whether the claim fails due to nonjoinder of necessary party i.e., the Indian Navy?OPR. Issue No. 4 Whether the Claimant has approached the Tribunal with unclean hands?OPR. Issue No. 5 Whether the reference to DIAC is in accordance with law?OPR. Issue No. 6 Whether the Claimant accepted the Amendment No. 1 dated 07.03.2009 and also accepted the period of delivery by letter dated 16.03.2009 and email dated 24.04.2009?OPR. Issue No. 7 Whether in the facts of the case, time was not the essence of the contract? OPC. Issue No. 8 Whether there was a delay on the part of the Respondent to carry out inspection of the materials in accordance with specification and drawings and the release of the Inspection Release Note and test certificate on 26.11.2009? If so to what effect/OPC. Issue No. 9 Whether the Respondents were entitled to deduct liquidated damages as subject goods were delivered after the last date of delivery which as per the Respondent was 05.10.2009?OPR. Issue No. 10 If the answer to issue No. 1 is in the affirmative, Claimant is entitled to what interest and from which date?OPC. 3. Factual matrix of case of petitioner in brief is that applicant/petitioner is a proprietorship concern of which Sh. B.S Bhatia is the sole proprietor. Applicant/petitioner is a Micro Enterprise registered with the office of Commissioner of Industries, Delhi under MSMED Act, 2006. OMP (COMM.) No. 179/2019 M/s Bhatia Engineering Company vs. M/s Cochin Shipyard Ltd. Page 2 of 36 Applicant/petitioner was also the registered vendor with the respondent. Respondent is a Government of India owned company engaged in Ship Building and Ship Repairing for the Indian Navy and other civil customers. The respondent issued a tender enquiry on 24/05/2008 for supply of "Filters/Strainers" for building an indigenous Aircraft Carrier Po71 for the Indian Navy and applicant/petitioner was selected for the same. The respondent company floated a notice inviting tenders enquiry for supply of filters and strainers for Indigenous Aircraft Carrier P071 for Indian Navy.