The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ARBA NO.49 OF 2018 ---------(A) & ARBA NO.50 OF 2018 ---------(B) In the matter of Appeals under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 assailing the judgment dated 10.08.2018 passed by learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in ARB(P) No.32 of 2017. the ---- ARBA No.49 of 2018 Odisha State Seeds Corporation Ltd. -versus- …. Appellant M/s. Pallavi Firms and Nurseries …. Respondent ARBA No.50 of 2018 M/s. Pallavi Firms and Nurseries …. Appellant -versus- Odisha State Seeds Corporation Ltd. …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant- For Respondent- Mr. R. K. Mohanty, Senior Advocate Mr. N. K. Sahu Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Page 1 of 34 Date of Hearing: 06.03.2024 :: Date of Judgment:01.05.2024 Dash,J. Since both these Appeals under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the A & C Act) arise from the judgment dated 10.08.2018, passed by the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in ARBP No.32 of 2017, those were heard together for their disposal by the common judgment. The Appeal as at ‘A’ when has been filed by the Odisha State Seed Corporation Limited, the Petitioner before the learned District Judge and Respondent in the Arbitral proceeding; the other Appeal as at ‘B’ has been filed by M/s. Pallabi Farms and Nursery, the Claimant in the Arbitral Proceeding and the Respondent in the Court of the learned District Judge where the Appellant of the Appeal as at ‘A’ had filed the application under section 34 of the A & C Act. 2. The Appellant-Corporation of the Appeal as at ‘A’ had prayed for setting aside the award dated 05.06.2017 passed by the learned Arbitrator in Arbitration Proceeding No.18 of 2015. The learned Court below while refusing to set aside the award, has simply modified the same to the extent of reduction of the rate interest of 21% which had been awarded by the learned Arbitrator over the claims allowed under item no.3 and 4 to 9% and future interest to 18% as against 24% which had been awarded by the learned Arbitrator. 3. For the sake of convenience and in order to bring in clarity, avoiding confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as per the position assigned to then in the Appeal as at ‘A’ Page 2 of 34 4. Factual matrix of the case are as under:- On 29.10.2013, the Appellant-Corporation issued a purchase order in favour of the Respondent-Claimant with a direction for supply of 29000 quintals of Groundnut seeds on or before 30.11.2013. On that very day, the Appellant-Corporation also issued purchase order in favour of National Seed Corporation (NSC) and State Farms Corporation of India Limited (SFCI) for supply of 40,000/- quintals and 26000/- quintals of Groundnut seeds respectively on or before the same targeted date i.e. 30.11.2013. In all these three purchase orders issued by the Appellant-Corporation, there was time schedule for supply of the Groundnut seeds. The details as to the supply schedule and actual supply of the Groundnut seeds by the Respondent-Claimant were as under:- SUPPLY SCHEDULE FOR SUPPLY OF CERTIFIED GROUNDNUT SEEDS (TMV-2) BY PALLAVI FIRMS AND NURSERIES LTD. DURING RABI, 2013-14 Destination point Sl. No . QUANTITY TO BE SUPPLIED (IN QTLS.) 7th Nov 15th Nov 21st Nov 30th Nov Total 1 2 3 4 6 7 Ganjam 4000 4000 3000 3000 14000 Gajapati 300 Cuttack 1200 Keonjhar 170 Puri Khordha 3000 1000 300 1200 170 2700 1000 2000 1000 2000 9700 500 3500 Page 3 of 34 9 Nayagarh 130 130 Total 9800 7700 6000 5500 29000 The Director of Agriculture and Food Production by order dtd.07.11.2013 vide Ext.C/10 constituted a Committee to verify the quantity, variety, truck number and challan number of the Groundnut seeds stocks entering into the State at Girisola check gate. On 11.11.2013, the Appellant-Corporation then changed the quantity of supply of Groundnut seeds to the destination points of the said supply. There was a revision of the supply schedule whereunder supply of 14470 quintals of Groundnut seeds to Ganjam, Gajapati and Keonjhar was cancelled and a new destination point for supply of 3970 quintals to Jajpur was added. For that reason, the Respondent-Claimant could not fully supply the Groundnut seeds for the period up to 15.11.2013. When the Respondent-Claimant was thus going on supplying the Groundnut seeds to the Appellant-Corporation, on 27.11.2013, the Appellant-Corporation issued a letter to the Respondent-Claimant wherein it having made supply of 19000 quintals of Groundnut seeds out of the total supply of 29000 quintal by 26.11.2013, the Respondent-Claimant was then asked to stop further supply of seeds on the ground that demand by the farmers had declined and sale of the seeds was in a declining order. Prior to issuance of said letter dated 27.11.2013 by the Appellant-Corporation for stopping the supply of groundnut seed, no such letter had been issued to the Respondent-Claimant at any earlier given point of time. The details supply schedule and actual supply of Groundnut seeds by the Respondent-Claimant, NSC and SFC are as under:- Page 4 of 34 Name of Parties Supply Schedule for the period 07.11.13 Actual Supply for the period 07.11.1 3 Supply Schedul e for the period 08.11.13 to 15.11.1 3 Actual Supply for the period 08.11.13 to 15.11.13 Supply Schedule for the period 16.11.13 to 21.11.13 Actual Supply for the period 16.11.1 3 to 21.11.1 3 Supply Schedul e for the period 22.11.13 to 30.11.13 Actual Supply for the period 22.11.13 to 30.11.13 NSC 15,600 NIL 11,000 NIL 7,700 135 5,700 14,255.63 SFCI 9,150 NIL 10,000 NIL 4,350 NIL 2,500 5,057 Pallavi 6,200 NIL 7,830 944 8500 4,165.51 6,470 14,519.99 It is stated that in view of the purchase order dated 29.10.2013, prescribing the schedule date of delivery of the Groundnut seeds at different destination, there was no further authority on the part of the Appellant-Corporation to suddenly stop the supply of Groundnut seeds when the last schedule date had not even expired. At the same time, the Appellant-Corporation, however, did not issue any such letter to NSC or SFCI directing them to stop supply of the Groundnut seeds before the schedule date citing that very factor as to decrease of the demand from the side of the farmers in the State; although on the very day, i.e. 29.10.2013, the Appellant-Corporation had issued three purchase orders in favour of NSC, SFCI and the Respondent-Claimant. It is therefore said that such direction to the Appellant-Corporation stopping them from supplying the Groundnut seeds before the expiry of the period of supply to the Appellant-Corporation is wholly arbitrary and in opposition to the terms and conditions of the purchase order dated 29.10.2013. The said letter (Ext.C/14) reads as under:- Page 5 of 34 “Sir, Order has been placed with you to supply 29,000 qtls of freshly harvested Certified Groundnut seeds of variety TMV-2 latest by 30.11.2013. As per report received from the verification team, you have already dispatched 19,000 qtls of the seeds in question by the demand of Groundnut seeds by the farmers of our State is declining and accordingly the sale of the seeds is also decreasing day by day. Hence, you are requested to stop the supply of Groundnut seeds for the present till further communication from this end. i.e.26.11.2013. Now today Yours Faithfully, Sd/- Managing Director” On 29.11.2013, the Appellant-Corporation asked the Respondent-Claimant to deposit the balance amount of Rs.910250/- towards the security amount at the rate of 5% (five percentum) of the price of 19000 quintals of Groundnuts seeds already supplied and also requested the Respondent-Claimant to execute the agreement. The Respondent-Claimant deposited the said amount by demand draft
Facts
whereafter on 12.10.2013, the agreement between the parties came into being and there the position as to supply of 19815 quintals of Groundnuts seeds stood admitted and accepted. The Respondent- Claimant stated that he had actually supplied 19815 quintals of Groundnuts seeds to the Appellant-Corporation but because samples were taken from the said supplied stock, the total quantity of the supply got reduced to 19630.95 quintal, which was excluding the quantity of the Groundnuts seeds taken for the sample. The Respondent-Claimant thereafter submitted 9 (nine) bills before the Appellant-Corporation and Page 6 of 34 requested for payment. The Respondent-Claimant having supplied 19630.95 quintals of Groundnuts seeds which at least stands admitted, the price for the same comes to Rs.11,17,98,260.00 which further stood admitted vide the letter dated 06.02.2014 sent to the Joint Secretary, Agriculture Department. As per Clause-4 of the purchase order dated 29.10.2013, the Appellant-Corporation was required to pay 80% (Eighty Percentum) of the seed cost to the Respondent-Claimant within one month of receipt of the acknowledged bills along with the copy of the utilized way bills for each truck for entry into the State of Odisha. The Respondent-Claimant having submitted the bills before the Appellant-Corporation, it was entitled to get 80% of the seed cost from 20.12.2013 to 07.01.2014 as per the said bills. Rest 20% of the seed cost as per clause-5 of the purchase order was to be released on receipt of the copy of the release order/certificate issued by Seed Certificate Agency (SCA) for each lot along with the satisfactory laboratory test report of the sample drawn at the time of receipt of the stock. On 19.03.2014, the Respondent-Claimant submitted the certification in Form-II issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certifying Agency towards supply of Groundnuts seeds seed to the Appellant-Corporation. Prior to receipt of such certificate, the Appellant had also received the reports of the (State Seed Testing Laboratory) SSCL, Bhubaneswar in respect of the joint sample drawn at the time of receipt of the groundnut. So, it claimed that the Respondent-Claimant is entitled to get the balance 20% (twenty percentum) of the seed cost with effect from 19.03.2014. Since the Appellant-Corporation did not pay the cost of the Groundnuts seeds seed to the Respondent-Claimant that was claimed, Page 7 of 34 the Respondent-Claimant moved the Hon’ble High Court by filing an application under section 11(6) of the A & C Act for appointment of Arbitrator. In that ARBP No.19 of 2014, by order dated 05.11.2015,
Legal Reasoning
made basing on the stock entry and the prima facie observation of the seeds, samples were sent to the laboratory for testing, germination percentage and physical purity part which is one of the parameters of the Seed Act, 1966 and the Rules made thereunder, was not tested. It is further tested Respondent-Claimant failed to execute the agreement dated 12.12.2013 in accordance with the stipulation as per the supply order dated 29.10.2013 within seven days of depositing the security amount and the agreement was executed after the expiry of the scheduled supply date. It is, however, admitted that the security amount for 19,815 quintals of Groundnut seeds was Rs.56,42,321/-. The Appellant-Corporation complied with the instructions of the Agriculture Department with regard to the booking of the seeds under Chief Minister Special Packege, the genuineness of the contents of the letter dated 27.12.2013 from the Managing Director of the Appellant- Corporation to the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department regarding sale status of the groundnut seeds is said to be doubtful. It is pointed out that the reports of the State Seed Testing Laboratory are not in respect of the entire quantity of the seed supplied by the Respondent- Page 11 of 34 Claimant. The agreement very much provides for penalty and that is taken as the defence for the actions taken by the Appellant-Corporation. It is next stated that the Respondent-Claimant exercising his personal influence became successful to induce at the ground level staff of the Appellant-Corporation for acceptance of the stock. They state that the minimum seed certification standard-1988 provides that the seeds once tested is valid for a period of 9 months from the date of test for which the Respondent-Claimant cannot find fault with the complaint by the Seed Procurement Office (SPO), Balasore with regard to 977 quintals of Groundnut seeds diverted from the SPO (Seed Procurement Office) unit, Bhubaneswar. They state that since no action was initiated by the Respondent-Claimant for lifting of the unsold and complaint stock, no decision was taken for release of the seed cost dues as against the Respondent-Claimant’s contention that for such non-payment, he had to face the actions under the SARFAESI Act from the side of its Bankers; it is stated that the same was for the Respondent-Claimant’s default and they had nothing to do with the same. 7. The Appellant-Corporation refuted all the above pleadings made by the Respondent-Claimant. They further in specific reply to the claim of the Respondent-Claimant towards refund of the security amount claimed that they are to recover a sum of Rs.1,42,05,224.60/- from the Respondent-Claimant. The counter claim as above is the penalty imposed by invocation of clause-v (i) of the agreement dated 12.12.2013 and that includes the cost of the go-down rent, supervision charges and watch and ward wages. 8. The learned Arbitrator, with the aforesaid case and counter case, framed the following issues for their settlement:- Page 12 of 34 i. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.4,68,26,169.00 as the cost of seeds from the Respondent-Corporation after receipt of Rs.6,49,72,091.00 on dt.04.04.2016 pursuant to directions in this proceeding? ii. Whether the Claimant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.56,42,321.00 as security deposit along with interest and, if so, from which date? iii. Whether the Claimant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.2,13,42,696.00 from the Respondent Corporation as the loss on account of order dt.27.11.2013 abruptly stopping supply of Groundnuts from the Claimant? iv. Whether the Claimant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.3,35,39,478.00 from the Respondent Corporation towards loss on account of overhead and profit due to non-release of dues? v. Whether the Claimant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.5,92,69,101.00 as past interest from the Respondent Corporation for non-payment of dues and from which date? vi. Whether the Claimant is entitled to receive interest from the Respondent Corporation for non-refund of security deposit and from which date? vii. Whether the Claimant is entitled to receive interest from Respondent Corporation as against her claim no.3 and 4 @ 25% per annum and from which date? Page 13 of 34 viii. Whether the Claimant is entitled to receive pendent lite interest? ix. Whether the Claimant is entitled to receive future interest from the Respondent Corporation from the date of award @ 24% per annum? x. Whether the Claimant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.30.00 lakhs as the cost of arbitration proceedings? xi. Whether the Claimant is entitled to any other relief? 9. Mr. R. K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant- Corporation submitted that by accepting the supply order the Respondent-Claimant agreed to perform the contract within the agreed time schedule and when he has failed to supply as per the weekly schedules and that has hampered the distribution of the seeds to the farmers, who were reluctant to purchase at a belated stage. The stoppage of supply of further quantity of groundnut seeds is not arbitrary. In this connection, he has invited the attention of the Court to clause 8 and clause 10 of the side order it stipulated as under clause 8 and 10. He, therefore, submitted that in the instant case since the Respondent-Claimant has admittedly failed to meet the demand of the groundnut seeds to the supply to the farmers as per the stipulated time schedule in the supply order, he cannot make any complaint with regard to stoppage of further supply of groundnut seeds, and, therefore, the claims based upon the same is untenable. He, in this connection, also submitted that the requirement of the seeds was a factor very much dependent on the demand of the farmers and when owing to the non- supply of the seed as per the time schedule, the requirements/demands Page 14 of 34 of the farmers could not be met and as that was clearly reflected in the tender document under clause 6(e) which reads as follows, the Arbitrator has lost sight of the fact that the agreement dated 12.12.2013 superseded the earlier contract for supply of 29000 quintals as per section 52 of the Contract Act. He, therefore, submitted that the Respondent-Claimant is not entitled to claim any damage since the left- out groundnut seeds had not been disposed of and the other claims being not parts of the contract was submitted to be untenable. He further submitted that the award of lost of Rs.30,00,000.00 (30 lacs) has no basis and is quite arbitrary. He, therefore, submitted that the judgment passed by the learned District Judge in refusing to set aside the award under challenge within the scope and ambit of section 34 of the A & C Act is liable to be set aside and in turn the award in question is also liable to be set aside. 10. Mr. N. K. Sahu, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent- Claimant placing reliance upon the decision of the hon’ble Apex Court in case of S.P Samudram -v- State of Karnataka and another (2024) SCC online SC 19, at the outset placed before this court, the scope of interference by the Court in seisin of an Appeal under section 37 of the A & C Act against an order disposing an application under section 34 of the Act in refusing to set aside the award of the learned Arbitrator. Next proceeding to counter the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant-Corporation, he contended that on each head of the claim, learned Arbitrator has discussed at length, the available evidence and appreciated the same in the backdrop of the rival case. Drawing the attention of this Court to the reasons given by the learned Arbitrator by deciding each of the issues, he contended that under the Page 15 of 34 circumstance, this Court is precluded from undertaking an independent assessment of the merits of the award by reappreciation of the evidence and it should remain confined only to the ascertainment in exercise of the power under A & C Act and within the scope of the said provisions. He contended that the award of cost has been affirmed by the learned Court in seisin of the proceeding giving sound reason and therefore the same is not liable to be interfered with in this Appeal. He further submitted that the learned Court in seisin of the application under section 34 of the A & C Act has abruptly and arbitrarily reduced the rate of pendente lite and future interest substantially that being not backed by any sound reasoning is liable to be interfered with in restoring the award of interest as had been made by the learned Arbitrator. 11. Heaving heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and giving my anxious and thoughtful consideration over the same, the following points for determination have been identified for being answered:- Issues for consideration: - (1) What is the scope of this Court’s power under section 37 of the A & C Act and whether the arbitral award is in contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law, as in the given case contrary to the provision laid down in the Indian Limitation Act, 1963? (2) Whether the findings of the Arbitrator are based on no evidence and as such the same are perverse and thus the award suffers from the vice of patent illegality? Page 16 of 34 (3) Whether the learned Court in seisin of the proceeding under section 34 of the A & C Act is right in simply reducing the rate of interest pendente lite and future and accepting the award as regards imposition of exorbitant cost of Rs.30 lacs? 12. ISSUE A: WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THIS COURTS POWER UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE A &C ACT 1. In the present case, we are only concerned with Section 37(1)(c) which states that an appeal lies under Section 37 from an order setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the A& C Act. 2. We may note that the law laid down by the Supreme Court constricts the supervisory role of the courts while testing the validity of an Arbitration Award. In the case of Mcdermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 181, the Supreme Court has held as under:— “The 1996 Act makes provision for the supervisory role of courts, for the review of the arbitral award only to ensure fairness. Intervention of the court is envisaged in few circumstances only, like, in case of fraud or bias by the Ld. Arbitral Tribunals, violation of natural justice, etc. The court cannot correct errors of the Ld. Arbitral Tribunals. It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired. So, the scheme of the provision aims at keeping the supervisory role of the court at minimum Page 17 of 34 level and this can be justified as parties to the agreement make a conscious decision to exclude the court's jurisdiction by opting for arbitration as they prefer the expediency and finality offered by it.” 13. It is now a settled position that while exercising a power under Section 34 of the A & C Act, the arbitral award can only be confirmed or set aside, but not modified. To buttress the said position of law, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment and order in NHAI v. M. Hakeem (2021) SCC Online SC 473, wherein the Supreme Court held that: (2) and “16. What is important to note is that, far from Section 34 being in the nature of an appellate provision, it provides only for setting aside awards on very limited grounds, such grounds being contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 34. Secondly, as the marginal note of Section 34 indicates, “recourse” to a court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in (3). accordance with sub-sections “Recourse” is defined by P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon (3rd Edn.) as the enforcement or method of enforcing a right. Where the right is itself truncated, enforcement of such truncated right can also be only limited in nature. What is clear from a reading of the said provisions is that, given the limited grounds of challenge under sub-sections (2) and (3), an application can only be made to set aside an award. This becomes even clearer when we see sub-section (4) under which, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1) of Section 34, the court may adjourn the Section 34 proceedings and give the Arbitral Tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings or take such action as will eliminate the grounds for setting Page 18 of 34 aside the arbitral award. Here again, it is important to note that it is the opinion of the Arbitral Tribunal which counts in order to eliminate the grounds for setting aside the award, which may be indicated by the court hearing the Section 34 application. xxx 31. Thus, there can be no doubt that given the law laid down by this Court, Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 cannot be held to include within it a power to modify an award. The sheet anchor of the argument of the respondents is the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Gayatri Balaswamy [Gayatri Balaswamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 6568 : (2015) 1 Mad LJ 5] . This matter arose out of a claim for damages by an employee on account of sexual harassment at the workplace. The learned Single Judge referred to the power to modify or correct an award under Section 15 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in para 29 of the judgment. Thereafter, a number of judgments of this Court were referred to in which awards were modified by this Court, presumably under the powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. In para 34, the learned Single Judge referred in McDermott case [McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181] and then concluded that since the observations made in the said para were not given in answer to a pointed question as to whether the court had the power under Section 34 to modify or vary an award, this judgment cannot be said to have settled the answer to the question raised finally. to para 52 xxx
Arguments
this Court appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. K. Patel (Retd.) as the Arbitrator. 5. The Respondent-Claimant laid the following items of claims:- (I) The cost of 19630.95 quintals of groundnut seeds at the rate of Rs.5695/- per quintal. It be stated at this stage that when an application under section 17 of the A & C Act was filed by the Respondent-Claimant in the Arbitral proceeding seeking a direction to the Appellant-Corporation to pay cost of 13120.90 quintals of Groundnut seeds, as an interim measure and that being then under consideration; the Appellant-Corporations in its 145th Board Meeting held in 15.02.2016 decided to release Rs.6,49,72,091.00 towards cost of 11408.62 quintals of sold quantity of Groundnut seeds at the rate of Rs.5695/- per quintal and then seeking leave of the Arbitral Tribunal, which was granted by the learned Arbitrator vide order dated 22.02.2016, the Appellant-Corporation has paid Rs.6,49,72,091.00 to the Respondent-Claimant which was received on 04.04.2016. So the balance claimed under this head stood at Rs.4,68,26,169.00. (II) Refund of security amount of Rs.5642321.00/-. (III) Cost of 40% of the groundnut seeds of 9369 quintals which the Appellant-Corporation stopped for being supplied by Page 8 of 34 the Respondent-Claimant on 27.11.2013 as the loss on that account amounting to Rs.21342696.00/-. (IV) 30% of the total seed cost for the loss on account of overhead and profit due to non-release of the dues by the Appellant-Corporation amounting to Rs.33539478.00/- Furthermore, the Respondent-Claimant claimed interest at the ate of 24% per annum for the delay in release of the payment of the bill amount beyond the stipulated period as well as security deposit and amount claimed for the loss on account of order dated 27.11.2013 stopping the supply i.e. 40% of the cost of 9369 quintals of groundnut and 30% of the total seed cost towards loss on account of overhead and profit due to non-release of the dues by the Appellant-Corporation under claim item no.3 and 4 respectively indicating the period for claim of interest separately and also interest at the rate of 24% as pendete-lite and future over the award amount along with cost of Rs.3000000.00 for the proceeding. 6. The Appellant-Corporation in response admitted the following facts:- a) Respondent-Claimant’s selection as a supplier process; b) Issuance of supply order for supply of 29000 quintals of Groundnut seeds; c) Issuance of revised supply schedule; d) Stoppage of further supply by letter dated 27.11.2013; e) Making of stock entries on the brief; Page 9 of 34 f) Execution of agreement on 12.12.2013 for supply of 19815 quintals of ground but (including quantity drawn as samples); g) Deposit of security amount; h) Constitution of committee for inspection and verification of seeds at border check gate and at Hyderabad; i) Acknowledgement of receipt of 19630 quintals of groundnut and sale of 13128.90 quintals of Groundnuts; j) Receipt of laboratory text reports communications from the Respondent-Claimant for release of the payment; k) The stand of the Appellant-Corporation not to release the payment until the Respondent-Claimant lift the unsold and complained quantity of Groundnut seeds. The Appellant-Corporation stated that for the order of investigation by the State Vigilance Authority restraining the Board of Directors to take any decision in the matter, it was suggested in their 137th meeting that the seed cost dues would be released only when the Respondent-Claimant took back the unsold and complained stock. It is stated that the Respondent-Claimant did not supply the seed as per the supply schedule under the supply order dated 29.10.2013. The complaints were received from the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Jajpur, Jagatsinghpur, Balasore and Dhenkanal with regard to the quality of different quantities of seeds for which the Respondent- Claimant was intimated by the Appellant-Corporation to take back the poor quality and unsold Groundnut seeds. Inspection and verification of seeds supplied by the Respondent-Claimant was made by the Page 10 of 34 Committee constituted by the Appellant-Corporation to ensure quality supply and the modification of supply schedule was not the reason for delay in view of the fact that the Respondent-Claimant had not been able to adhere to weekly supply schedule from the very beginning. It is also stated that the sowing of Groundnut seeds normally starts from the second week of October in the coastal districts of the State. Since maximum quantities supplied by the Respondent-Claimant were received towards the fag end of November, the demand declined and that is the reason the Respondent-Claimant was asked not to further supply. The acknowledgment of the quantity of seeds supplied had been