State of Odisha & others ....... Opp. Parties For Petitioner : Mr. G. Mukherji, Senior Advocate For Opp. Party Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. T. Pattanaik, Addl. Govt. Advocate For Opp. Party No.3 : Mr. M. Mishra, Senior Advocate Date of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date of Judgment: 28.02.2024 S.K. Mishra, J. The Petitioner, which is a Government of India Enterprise, incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and has its operation in the State of Madhya Pradesh, has preferred the present Writ Petition challenging the letter dated 30th July, 2014/1st August, 2014 of the Director of Industries cumChairman, MSEFC, Odisha. Vide the said communication, the General Manager of the PetitionerCompany was intimated that appointment of another Arbitrator by the PetitionerCompany is illegal and beyond law, as the matter has already been referred to the Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council, shortly, 'MSEFC', and the proceeding is going on before the MSEFC. 2. The brief background facts which led to filing of the present Writ Petition, is that the PetitionerCompany, in order to run its unit, requires chilled cast iron grinding media balls, shortly, hereinafter 'cast iron balls'. The Opposite Party No.3 showed interest to supply the said materials to the present Petitioner. As such, the PetitionerCompany issued purchase order dated 21.10.2000 for supply of materials. The conditions contained in the said purchase order formed the contract between the parties as the Opposite Party No.3 made supplies pursuant to the said purchase order. The purchase orders were time bound and the supplier, i.e. present Opposite Party No.3, was obliged to make the supplies within the stipulated dates failing which, it was liable to pay compensatory costs to the PetitionerCompany. Vide clause 20.0 of the said contract, there was an arbitration clause which provided for resolving any dispute, that may arise out of the contract. Subsequently, the Petitioner placed order for supply of cast iron balls of 80 mm diameter. However, the Opposite Party No.3 could not supply the materials in due time for which the W.P.(C) No.16423 of 2014 Page 2 of 24 PetitionerCompany could not process the same in time and sustained huge loss. Such loss was occasioned as the cast iron balls were an integral part in the process of extraction of the metal from the ores, without which the process of extraction came to a grinding halt. 3. The PetitionerCompany could not meet its targets and obligations to supply finished products to its consumers and as such, payments due to it were withheld. As a consequence thereof, the Petitioner could not make the payments in time. There was some delay in making the payments even though some payments were being made in the interregnum and the same is attributable to the delay caused in supply of goods by the Opposite Party No.3. Hence, the question of payment of interest for delay in making the payments does not arise as the delay, if any, was attributable to the Opposite Party No.3, who could not supply the materials in due time. Rather, it would be the Opposite Party No.3, who would be liable to indemnify the Petitioner for damages caused due to the lapses on its part by delaying the process of supplying the materials. 4. It is further case of the Petitioner, that without inspection of the cast iron balls, the payments could not have W.P.(C) No.16423 of 2014 Page 3 of 24 been made by the Petitioner. The delay in supply of the cast iron balls disturbed the entire production schedule of the Petitioner, thereby causing it further loss. However, it was mutually agreed between the parties that the Petitioner would not press for such losses if interest for delay in payment is not claime