arbitration claimant evidence

Arbitration Case Overview

• Tribunal: Hon'ble Arbitral Tribunal with Sh. R. Thanga as Lone Arbitrator

• Case Number: 1 of 2024

• Claimant: M/s Ravi Gulgulia

• Respondents:

  1. M/s Zoram Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (ZIDCO)

  2. The Managing Director of ZIDCO

  3. State of Mizoram represented by Chief Secretary

  4. The Secretary of Commerce & Industries Department, Government of Mizoram

Claimant's Position

• Affidavit Affirmation: Ravi Gulgulia, as proprietor of the Claimant firm, certifies his familiarity with case facts and asserts his right to testify on behalf of the Claimant.

• Claim Basis:

  • Continuing cause to claim refund of Security Deposit with interest due to non-refund by respondents, allegations of contract breach, and wrongful encashment of bank guarantee.

  • Claim relates to projects involving coal distribution under the New Coal Distribution Policy (NCDP), 2007.

• Specific Events:

  • Continued requests for refund ignored.

  • Specific claims initiated based on the correspondence dated 21.12.2011, 09.05.2012, among others, regarding encashed bank guarantees and deposit requests.

  • Inactions resulted in loss to the Claimant, leading to the current arbitration proceedings initiated in 2023.

Claims Made by Claimant

1. Claim for Release of Security Deposit (Claim A):

   • Total of Rs. 6,81,40,714 sought for security deposit and interest.

2. Claim for Short Lifting Compensation (Claim B):

   • Claiming Rs. 41,37,159 for short lifting penalties due to state delays.

3. Claim for Loss of Profit from Service Charges (Claim C):

   • Seeking Rs. 3,96,25,094 as claimed service charges due to premature termination of agreements.

4. Claim for Loss of Reputation & Goodwill (Claim D):

   • Requesting Rs. 5,00,000 for damages to business reputation.

5. Claim for Arbitration Costs (Claim E):

   • Cost of arbitration proceedings (actuals) to be determined.

6. Claim for Interest (Claim F):

   • Interest at 24% per annum on the aforementioned claims.

Additional Arguments

• Respondents' Liability: Claimant argues that the respondents have breached contractual obligations, leading to financial damage and reputational harm.

• Jurisdiction: Asserts that claims are maintainable under the agreements executed, rejecting respondents' defenses presented in their Statement of Defence.

• Correspondent Evidence Presented: Includes various notices and requests for debt recovery issued to the respondents, supporting the Claimant's position and claims for amounts due.

Conclusion

• Claimant emphasizes the legal obligation of respondents to refund not just the principal amounts but also associated interests and service charges due to delays and breaching actions.

• The Tribunal's decision will address these claims, based on the documentation and responses provided by both parties throughout the arbitration process.