State Of West Bengal vs Pam Developments Private

Limited on 3 November, 2016 (Appealed in SC)

Authorities Cited by Claimant
1. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. L.K. Ahuja reported at (2004) 5 SCC 109 Para 11.
2. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. reported at (2009) 12
SCC.
3. Mcdermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. reported at (2006) 11 SCC Pg 181
at 208, Paragraphs 55-57 : The arbitrator is required to assign reasons in support of the award.
A question may invariably arise as to what would be meant by a reasoned award.
4. Som Datt Builders Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala reported at (2009) 10 SCC 259: It has been
categorically stated that the arbitrator is required to give proper and adequate reasons for
arriving at the conclusion and such reasons shall not only be intelligible but shall be a reason
connected with the case which the Court can see is proper.
5. Konkar Rly, Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Mehul Construction Co : The Court emphasized the
mandatoriness of giving reasons unless the arbitration agreement provides otherwise.”
6. M/s. A.T. Brij Paul Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1984 SC 1703 : If, loss of business
is essentially loss of profit then, the same is to be computed as a percentage of the value of the
balance work which the contractor could not do because of the contract having been wrongly
terminated thereby leading to loss of anticipated profit on the value of the work which was left
undone.
7. Ramnath International Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported at 2007 (2) SCC
453.
8. Delhi Development Authority Vs. R.S. Sharma reported at 2008 (13) SCC 80.
9. Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Chowgule Brothers reported at 2010 (8) SCC 563.
10. Fercometal SARL V Mediterranean Shipping CO SA reported at 1988 (2) All ER Page 742
was referred to demolish the award allowing price escalation and other claims during the
extended period.
11. Union of India Vs. Saraswat Trading Agency reported at (2009) 16 SCC 504 Para 33 & 34 :
Express bar in the contract to award of interest and damages would be applicable but only
during the period that the contract was subsisting.

12. Sayeed Ahmed And Company Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2009) 12 SCC 26;
Union of India Vs. Krafters Engineering & Leasing Pvt. Ltd.reported in (2011) 7 SCC
279;Tehri Hydro Development Corpn Ltd. Vs. Jai Prakash Associated Ltd. reported in (2012)
12 SCC 10 : Court made no distinction between the original period of contract and the extended
period during which the contractor worked.
13. Satyanarayana Construction Co. Vs. Union of India reported at (2011) 15 SCC 101 : The
arbitrator is not empowered to rewrite the terms of the contract and make an award contrary to
the express terms of the contract in respect of the agreed rate on various items or in the face of
prohibition in the contract.
14. Ramachandra Reddy & Co. Vs. State of A.P. & Ors. reported at 2001 (4) SCC 241 : Extension
of time cannot entitle the respondent to escalation in the absence of a clause enabling grant of
escalation or in the face of a clause prohibiting escalation.
15. Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority reported at 2015 (3) SCC 49 : If the
award is patently illegal and in breach of fundamental policy of Indian law the award is liable to
be set aside.

Authorities Cited by Respondent

1. Dwaraka Das Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. reported at 1999 (3) SCC 500; Associate Builders Vs.
Delhi Development Authority reported at 2015 (3) SCC 49; Centrotrade Minerals & Metals
Inc. Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. reported at 2006 (11) SCC 181 M/s. A.T. Brij Paul & Bros.
Vs. State of Gujarat reported at AIR 1984 SC 1703 : These decisions approve the Hudson
formula for profit calculation.
2. M/s. A.T. Brij Paul & Bros. Vs. State of Gujarat reported at AIR 1984 SC 1703; Deo Kumar
Saraf Vs. Union of India reported at 1988 1988 (2) CLJ 325; Centrotrade Minerals &
Matetals Inc. Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. reported at 2006 (11) SCC 181; Dwaraka Das Vs.
State of M.P. & Anr. reported at 1999 (3) SCC 500 : If there is breach, loss of profit on account
of damages is a necessary consequence.
3. K.N. Sathyapalan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. reported at 2007 (13) SCC 43l; Dwaraka Das
Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. reported at 1999 (3) SCC 500; Centrotrade Minerals & Matetals Inc.
Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. reported at 2006 (11) SCC 181; M/s. A.T. Brij Paul & Bros. Vs.
State of Gujarat reported at AIR 1984 SC 1703 : If there is breach, damages would follow.

 4. K.N. Sathyapalan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. reported at 2007 (13) SCC 43 ; Unreported
judgment of Division Bench in State of West Bengal Vs. S.N. Bhagat (MANU/WB/0894/2012)
: For the proposition that prohibitions in a contract do not apply in the event of breach.
5. Mcdermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. reported at (2006) 11 SCC : The
non-applicability of Section 55 of the Contract Act would apply since it was clearly held that in
cases of this nature, it is the second proviso of section 55 of the Contract Act which applies,
namely, that if there is a breach damages must follow.
Books:
1. Bachawat's Law of Arbitration and Conciliation, 4th Edn., pp. 855- 'Reason' is a ground or
motive for a belief or a course of action, a statement in justification or explanation of belief or
action. It is in this sense that the award must state reasons for the amount awarded.
2. Hudson on Building Contracts.

Authorities cited in the Judgement

1. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003 (5) SCC 705) : The scope of
public policy was widened and the SC interpreted it to include ‘ patent illegality’. "Patent
Illegality" as explained in this case meant any error of law on the face of award, however, it did
mention that the error which would be taken into consideration should not be trivial in nature.
2. Delhi Development Authority v. R.S. Sharma (2008(13) SCC 80) the Hon'ble Supreme Court
summarized the law as:-"From the above decisions, the following principles emerge:(a) An
Award, which is(i) Contrary to substantive provisions of law; or(ii) The provisions of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996;or(iii) Against the terms of the respective contract; or(iv)
Patently illegal, or(v) Prejudicial to the rights of the parties, is open to interference by the Court
under S.34(2) of the Act.”
3. ONGC Ltd. Vs. Garware Shipping Corporation Ltd. reported at 2007(13) SCC 434, it was
held that under Section 34 of the Act, an award can be set aside on the ground that it is
erroneous in law.
4. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. L.K. Ahuja reported at (2004) 5 SCC : The SC laid down the
limitations upon the scope of interference in awards passed by an arbitrator. When the arbitrator
has applied his mind to the pleadings, the evidence adduced before him and the terms of the
contract, there is no scope for the court to reappraise the matter as if this were an appeal and
even if two views are possible, the view taken by the arbitrator would prevail. So long as an
award made by an arbitrator can be said to be one by a reasonable person no interference is

 called for. However, in cases where an arbitrator exceeds the terms of agreement or passes an
award in the absence of any evidence, which is apparent on the face of the award, the same
could be set aside.”
5. In KV Mohd. Zakir v. Regional Sports Centre reported at AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2517 it held
that the courts should not interfere unless reasons given are outrageous in their defiance of logic
or if the arbitrator has acted beyond his/her jurisdiction.
6. In P.R. Shah Shares & Stock Brothers v. M/s. B.H.H. Securities (P) Ltd. reported at 2012 (1)
SCC 594 it states that a court does not sit in appeal over the award of an arbitral tribunal by re-
assessing or re-approaching the evidence. An award can be challenged only on the grounds
mentioned in S.34(2) of the Act.
7. In Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Salzgitter Mannesmann; OMP No.736 of 2009, decided on
18th April, 2012 (Delhi HC) it refused to set aside the award in view of court's limited and
restricted powers for judicial intervention as under S.34 of the Act. The court relied upon the
judgment in P.R. Shah Shares (supra) and held that the court cannot sit in appeal over the award
of the tribunal by re-assessing and re-evaluating the evidence.
8. In Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority reported at (2015) 3 SCC 49 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court subdivided Public Policy of India in four separate and distinct sub-
heads, namely: i) Fundamental Policy of Indian Law;ii) Interest of India iii) Justice or
Morality; and iv) Patent Illegality.
9. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Friends Coal Carbonization reported at (2006) 4 SCC 44 : An award
might be set aside as patently illegal, provided the illegality goes to the root of the award. If the
illegality is of a trivial nature it cannot be said that the award is against public policy.
10. Indu Engineering & Textiles Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority reported at (2001) 5 SCC
691 : The Supreme Court held that the Arbitrator being a Judge appointed by the parties, the
award passed by him is not to be interfered with lightly.
11. In Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran reported at (2012) 5 SCC 306, the
Supreme Court held that when a clause in a contract was capable of two interpretations and the
view taken by the arbitrator was clearly a possible if not a plausible one, it was not possible to
say that the arbitrator had travelled outside his jurisdiction, or that the view taken by him was
against the terms of contract. That being the position, Court could not interfere with the award
and substitute its view in place of the interpretation accepted by the arbitrator.
12. Frost v Knight (1872) LR7 Ex Ch III at 112-113, [1861-73] All ER Rep 22 I at 223-224 :
Quoted Cockburn CJ that "The law with reference to a contract to be performed at a future time,

 where the party bound to performance announces prior to the time his intention not to perform
it, as established.”
13. B.R. Herman & Mohatta v. Asiatic Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., AIR 1941 Sind 146 : The
damage is a compensation for the injury sustained that some of money to be given for reparation
of damages suffered should be, as nearly as possible be the sum which will put to injured party
in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is
getting the damages.
14. In P.M. Paul Vs. Union of India reported at 1989 Supp (1) SCC 368 held that ordinarily, the
parties would be bound by the terms agreed upon in the contract, but in the event one of the
parties to the contract is unable to fulfil its obligations under the contract which has a direct
bearing on the work to be executed by the other party, the arbitrator is vested with the authority
to compensate the second party for the extra costs incurred by him as a result of the failure of
the first party to live up to its obligations.

Octavius Tea & Industries Ltd vs Lakshmi Chand Garg

& Ors on 10 October, 2018
Authorities Cited By Respondent
1. Gujarat NRE Coke Limited Versus Jindal Steel and Power Limited reported in 2015 SCC
Online Cal 7519, Utkarsh Tubes & Pipes Ltd. v. Simplex Infrastructure Limited & Anr.
reported at 2015 (2) Arb. LR. 27 (Cal) : For the proposition that adjudication of arbitration
clauses and other such dispute the presence of the applicants are not necessary.
2. Niranjan Lal Todi & Anr. Versus Nando Lal Todi & Anr reported in 2011(1) CHN 6762 : To
counter the decision in Sukanya Holdings and contented that the said decision is not an
authority for the proposition that if some parties have been deliberately impleaded with a view
to avoiding the enforcement of the arbitration agreement the judicial authority in seisin of the
action is required to reject the said objection and referred the parties to arbitration.

Authorities Cited by Plaintiff

1. Sukannya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandiya & Anr. reported in AIR 2003 SC 2252 :
The causes of action against the defendants are not separate and distinct. The presence of the

 petitioners would be required for a complete and effective adjudication of the dispute between
the parties in suit. The causes of action cannot be dissected, and considering the nature of the
dispute, it cannot be referred to arbitration in its entirety.
2. Atul Singh and Others vs. Sunil Kumar Singh and Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 602
paragraph 18 and 19 : With regard to the non- compliance of Sub-Section 2 of Section 8 of
1996 Act

Authorities Cited in the Judgement

1. Sukannya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandiya & Anr. reported in AIR 2003 SC 2252.
2. Utkarsh Tubes & Pipes Ltd. v. Simplex Infrastructure Limited & Anr. reported at 2015 (2)
Arb. LR. 27 (Cal) : The court is to see the real purpose in impleading a party who is not a party
to the arbitration agreement.
3. Ameet Lalchand Shah and others vs. Rishabh Enterpirses and another reported at 2018 SCC
Online SC 487 : To clear the contentions raised by the amended provisions to the act.
4. In Bharat Sewa Sansthan vs. U.P. Electronics Corporation Ltd. reported at (2007) 7 SCC 737
the Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the view taken by the High Court that the photocopies of
the agreements could be taken on record for ascertaining the existence of an arbitration clause.
Books
1. Justice R.S. Bachawat's Law of Arbitration and Conciliation, Sixth Edition, Vol. I (Sections 1
to 34) at page 695 published by LexisNexis.

Ifgl Refractories Ltd vs Lindsay International Pvt. Ltd

on 22 January, 2019.
Authorities cited by Petitioner
1. Duro Felguera, S.A. Vs. Gangavaram Port Ltd. reported in (2017) 9 SCC 729 : The present
amendment in question has been noticed and discussed at length in this decision.
2. Ballabhadas Mathurdas Lakhani and Ors. v. Municipal Committee, MalKapoor reported in
(1970) 2 SCC 267: AIR 1970 SC 1002 : Implicitness in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that sub- section (6A) is valid and intra vires.
3. Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in (2004) 12
SCC 645 (paragraph 62) : Obiter dicta of Supreme Court judgment is binding on High Courts.

4. Oriented Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Narbheram Power and Steel Private Ltd. reported in (2018) 6
SCC 943 following the exposition in Vulcan Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Maharaja Singh reported
in (1976) 1 SCC 943 : There can be no arbitration in cases where the insurance company
disputes or does not accept liability under or in respect of the policy.

Authorities cited by Respondent

1. Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya and Anr. reported in 2003 (5) SCC 531 : The
court held as follows: The relevant language used in Section 8 is "in a matter which is the
subject matter of an arbitration agreement", Court is required to refer the parties to arbitration.
Therefore, the suit should be in respect of 'a matter' which the parties have agreed to refer and
which comes within the ambit of arbitration agreement. Where, however, a suit is commenced -
"as to a matter" which lies outside the arbitration agreement and is also between some of the
parties who are not parties to the arbitration agreement, there is no question of application of
Section 8. The words 'a matter' indicates entire subject matter of the suit should be subject to
arbitration agreement.
2. SBP and Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd. reported at (2005) 8 SCC 678 paragraphs 37, 39 and 47 :
The questions needed to be answered before appointing an arbitrator was laid down.
3. National Insurance Company Limited vs. Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd. reported at (2009) 1 SCC
267 : To reiterate the decision laid down in SBP and Co. v. Patel Egg. Ltd.
4. S.S. Bola v. B.D. Sardana reported in (1997) 8 SCC 522 : The legislature cannot in exercise
of its plenary power under Article 245 and 246 of the Constitution merely declare a decision of
a Court of Law to be invalid or to be inoperative in which case it would be held to be an
exercise of judicial power.
5. Indian Aluminium Co. v. State of Kerela reported in (1996) 7 SCC 637 : The validity of the
validating Act is to be judged by the following tests: [i] whether the legislation enacting the
validating Act has competence over the subject matter; [ii] whether by validation, the legislature
has removed the-defect which the court had found in the previous law [iii] whether the
validating law is inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter III of the Constitution. If tests are
satisfied, the Act can confer jurisdiction upon the Court with retrospective effect and validate
the past transactions which were declared to be unconstitutional. The legislature cannot assume
power of adjudicating a case by virtue of its enactment of the law without leaving it to the
judiciary to decide it with reference to the law in force. The legislature also is incompetent to

 overrule the decision of a Court without properly removing the base on which the judgment is
founded.
6. In Jaora Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of M.P. reported in AIR 1966 SC 416, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that a parliamentary legislation which sought to validate a state statute
(which had been held to be ultra vires the legislative competence of the State) would itself be
ultra vires.
7. Mussammat Gulab Koer v. Badshah Bahadur reported in 10 CLJ 420: 13 CWN 1197;Mani
Lal Guzrati v. Harendra Lal Roy reported in (1910) 12 CLJ 556; Scarf v. Jardine reported in
1882 (7) AC 345; Jai Singh v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1977 (1) SCC ; Delhi Gate
Auto Service Station and Anr. v. Bharat Petroleum Corportation Ltd., Agra and Ors. reported
in 2009(16) SCC 766;Mumbai International Airport vs M/S Golden Chariot Airport & Anr
reported in 2010 (10) SCC 422;Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. and Ors.
reported in 2011 (5) SCC 532 : For the contention that if both the arbitration as well as the suit
are allowed to proceed, there is every likelihood of a conflict of decisions.

Authorities Cited in the Judgement

1. National Insurance Company Limited v. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited; (2009) 1 SCC 267
: Where the intervention of the court is sought for appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal under
Section 11, the duty of the Chief Justice or his designate is defined in SBP & Co. This Court
identified and segregated the preliminary issues that may arise for consideration in an
application under Section 11 of the Act into three categories, that is, (i) issues which the Chief
Justice or his designate is bound to decide; (ii) issues which he can also decide, that is, issues
which he may choose to decide; and (iii) issues which should be left to the Arbitral Tribunal to
decide.
2. Chloro Controls India (P) Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. reported in (2013) 1
SCC 641 : Where the Court which, on its judicial side, is seized of an action in a matter in
respect of which the parties have made an arbitration agreement, once the required ingredients
are satisfied, it would refer the parties to arbitration but for the situation where it comes to the
conclusion that the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.
3. General Electric Co. v. Renusagar Power Co. [(1987) 4 SCC 137 : Once the Court finds that
the agreement is valid then it must make the reference, without any further exercise of
discretion.

 4. Kalpana Kothary v. Sudha Yadav reported at (2002) 1 SCC 203 : The scheme of the
arbitration Act of 1940 and 1996 was considered in this case.
5. Heyman v. Darwins Ltd.-- 1942 AC 356 : The law permits the parties to a contract to include in
it as one of its terms an agreement to refer to arbitration disputes which may arise in connection
with it, and the court of England enforce such a reference by staying legal proceedings in
respect of any matter agreed to be referred "if satisfied that there is no sufficient reason why the
matter should not be referred in accordance with the submission.”
6. Vijay Kumar Sharma vs. Raghunandan Sharma reported at (2010) 2 SCC 486 : The obvious
intention of this provision is that neither the filing of any suit by any party to the arbitration
agreement nor any application being made by the other party under section 8 to the court,
should obstruct or preclude a party from initiating any proceedings for appointment of an
arbitrator or proceeding with the arbitration before the Arbitral Tribunal.
Books
1. Justice R.S. Bachawat's Law of Arbitration and Conciliation, Sixth Edition, Vol. I (Sections 1
to 34) at page 695 published by LexisNexis.
2. “Law Relating to Arbitration and Conciliation" by Dr. P.C. Markanda.

Trl Krosaki Refractories Ltd vs Lindsay International

Private ... on 22 January, 2019
Authorities cited by Plaintiff
1. Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya and Anr. reported in (2003) 5 SCC 531 :
The purchase order led to an independent cause of action whereas this decision lays down
principle relating to bifurcation of claims.
2. Chloro Controls India (P) Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. reported in (2013) 1
SCC 641 : Where the Court which, on its judicial side, is seized of an action in a matter in
respect of which the parties have made an arbitration agreement, once the required ingredients
are satisfied, it would refer the parties to arbitration but for the situation where it comes to the
conclusion that the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.
3. General Electric Co. v. Renusagar Power Co.(1987) 4 SCC 137 : Once the Court finds that the
agreement is valid then it must make the reference, without any further exercise of discretion.
4. State of Orissa v. Klockner and Company & Ors. (AIR 1996 SC 2140).

 Authorities cited by Respondent

1. State of Goa v. Praveen Enterprises reported at 2012 (12) SCC 581 : To reiterate that the
respondent’s counter-claim could not be adjudicated.
2. Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya and Anr. reported in (2003) 5 SCC 531;
India Household and Healthcare Ltd. v. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd. reported in
(2007) 5 SCC 510 (paragraphs 21-22) and Tulip Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Trade Wings Ltd. reported
in (2010) 2 ArbLR 286 : To contend that the purchase order cannot be separated from the main
issue and could lead to bifurcation of procedure and multiplicity of proceedings.
3. Transcore v. Union of India reported in (2008) 1 SCC 125 (paragraph 64) and Booz Allen &
Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2011 (5) SCC 532 (paragraph
29) : For the proposition that "whether a party has waived his right to seek arbitration and
subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the court, depends upon the conduct of such party in the
suit”.
4. Mumbai International Airport vs M/S Golden Chariot Airport & Anr. reported in 2010 (10)
SCC 422 : For the contention that the petition should be dismissed right at the onset due to
grounds of fraud since the written statement filed in the suit has not been disclosed by the
petitioner in the petition.
5. Delhi Gate Auto Service Station and Anr. v. Bharat Petroleum Corportation Ltd., Agra and
Ors. reported in 2009 (16) SCC 766 : To further buttress the point that "two parallel remedies
could not have been pursued" by the petitioners at one and the same time.
Books
1. "Law Relating to Arbitration and Conciliation" by Dr. P.C. Markanda.

Authorities cited in the Judgement

1. Kalpana Kothary v. Sudha Yadav reported at (2002) 1 SCC 203 : In striking contrast to the
said scheme underlying the provisions of the 1940 Act, in the new 1996 Act, there is no
provision corresponding to Section 34 of the old Act and Section 8 of the Act mandates that the
Judicial Authority before which an action has been brought in respect of a matter, which is the
subject-matter of an arbitration agreement, shall refer the parties to arbitration if a party to such
an agreement applies not later than when submitting his first statement.
2. Heyman v. Darwins Ltd.-- 1942 AC 356 : House of Lords judgement stating "The law permits
the parties to a contract to include in it as one of its terms an agreement to refer to arbitration

 disputes which may arise in connection with it, and the court of England enforce such a
reference by staying legal proceedings in respect of any matter agreed to be referred "if satisfied
that there is no sufficient reason why the matter should not be referred in accordance with the
submission.”
3. Vijay Kumar Sharma vs. Raghunandan Sharma reported at (2010) 2 SCC 486 : Pendency of
an application under section 8 before any court will not come in the way of an arbitration being
commenced or continued and an arbitral award being made.
4. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Verma Transport Co. reported in (2006) 7 SCC 275 : This was
cited in order to clear the stance on the meaning of ‘first statement on the substance of dispute’.
Books
1. Justice R.S. Bachawat's Law of Arbitration and Conciliation, Sixth Edition, Vol. I
(Sections 1 to 34) at page 695 published by LexisNexis.

M/S. Bata India Ltd vs Sri Sagar Roy on 29 October,

2014
Authorities cited by Petitioner
1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. M/s. Bridge Tunnel Construction reported at AIR 1997 SC
1376 (Paragraph 26,29,32; Kishore Textile Mills v. Union of India reported at 2001(1) Arb
LR 101 (Del) and Shri Ram Syal & Sons v. Union of India reported at 2007 (1) Arbitration
Law Report 356 at pg. 363: It is the statutory obligation on the part of the arbitrator to pass a
reasoned and specific award unless there is n agreement to the contrary.
2. Ennore Port Ltd. Vs. Skanska Cementation India Ltd. & Ors. reported at 2008 (2) Arb. L.R.
598 : The arbitrator unlike the Court cannot introduce the motion of equity to determine the
claim.
3. Rukmuni Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Mira Singh reported at 2013 (5) CHN 309 (cal) and Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. SPS Engineering Ltd. reported at 2011(1) Arb LR 373: 2011(3) SCC
507 : Conclusions are no substitute of reasons and if an award is passed without any reason such
award becomes arbitrary, fanciful and vague.
4. Indian Minerals Company Vs. The Northern India Lime Marketing Association reported at
AIR 1958 All 692 and K.V. George Vs. The Secretary to Govt. Water & Power Dept. at
Trivandrum reported at AIR 1990 SC 53 : The arbitrator is required to decide all issues

 including the counter- claim. It is argued that the arbitrator has failed to consider the counter-
claim and, accordingly, misconducted himself.
Books
1. Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts (Volume I) 11th Editioon and Halsbury's
Laws of England, 4th Edition (Volume 4) : To suggest that architect has a very important role
to play and his role is to be assessed on the basis of the terms of the contract.
2. Paragraph 1324 of Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition : It has been referred to show
that the architect or engineer has no general authority to vary, waive or dispense with any
conditions contained in the contract without express authority to do so.

Authorities cited by Respondent

1. A.T. Brij Paul Singh and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat reported at AIR 1984 SC 1703 : It is not
impermissible for an arbitral tribunal to apply a guess work in order to determine an arbitral
award.
2. T.P. George vs. State of Kerala and Anr. reported at AIR 2001 SC 816 : To submit that the
Court in considering an application for setting aside an award should not substitute its views for
those of the arbitrators unless the view taken by the Arbitrator is unreasonable or one which
could not be arrived at by a reasonable person.
3. U.P. State Electricity Board vs M/s. Searsole Chemicals Ltd. reported at AIR 2001 SC 1171 :
To submit that when the arbitrator has applied its mind to the pleadings, the evidence adduced
and the terms of the contract, it would not be within the scope of the court to re-apprise the
matter as if it were an appeal and when it appears that two views are possible, the view taken by
the arbitrator would prevail.
4. Delhi Development Authority Vs. Anand & Association reported at 2008(1) Arb LR 490
(Del), Good Value Engineers vs. M.M.S. Nanda, Sole Arbitrator and Union of India; CS (OS)
No.2461/1997 reported at MANU/DE/4668/2009 (Mahanagar Gas Ltd. Mumbai Vs. Babulal
Uttamchand & Co. Mumbai) : If the arbitrator had resorted to honest guesswork after duly
considering the various facts, evidence and circumstances, the court unless finds it perverse or
unreasonable would not interfere with the award.

Authorities cited in the judgement :

1. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003 (5) SCC 705) : Court included
and interpreted ‘ patent illegality’ in the definition of public policy.

 2. Lord Mansfield in Holman v. Johnson stated that the principle of public policy is ex dolo
malo non oritur actio. No Court of law will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action
upon an immoral or illegal act.
3. ONGC Ltd. Vs. Garware Shipping Corporation Ltd. reported at 2007(13) SCC 434: It was
held that under Section 34 of the Act, an award can be set aside on the ground that it is
erroneous in law.
4. In KV Mohd. Zakir v. Regional Sports Centre reported at AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2517 : It held
that the courts should not interfere unless reasons given are outrageous in their defiance of logic
or if the arbitrator has acted beyond his/her jurisdiction.
5. In P.R. Shah Shares & Stock Brothers v. M/s. B.H.H. Securities (P) Ltd.; 2012 (1) SCC 594 :
It states that a court does not sit in appeal over the award of an arbitral tribunal by re-assessing
or re-approaching the evidence. An award can be challenged only on the grounds mentioned in
S.34(2) of the Act.
6. In Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Salzgitter Mannesmann; OMP No.736 of 2009, decided on
18th April, 2012 (Delhi HC) : Court refused to set aside the award in view of court's limited and
restricted powers for judicial intervention as under S.34 of the Act. The court relied upon the
judgment in P.R. Shah Shres (supra) and held that the court cannot sit in appeal over the award
of the tribunal by re-assessing and re-evaluating the evidence.
Books
1. FIDIC - An Analysis of International Construction Contracts : To look into the aspects of
turnkey contracts.
2. Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition.

Union Of India vs Plazer Machine Craft Pvt. Ltd on 7

December, 2016.
Authorities cited by Petitioner.
1. Union of India Vs. National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. reported at 2014 (3)
Arb. LR 233;SBP & Co. Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr. reported at (2005) 8 SCC 610;
Niraj Kumar Bohra Vs. Union of India. Reported at AIR 2009 Calcutta 59Union of India Vs.
Builders Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Reported at 2009(4) CHN 252;Supriya Kumar Saha Vs. Union

 of India, A.P.O No.329 of 2013, A.P. No.296 of 2007, judgment dated 24th December,
2013;Sayeed Ahmed & Company Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.reported at (2009) 12 SCC
26 : For the contention that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner did not raise any
objection before the learned Single Judge with regard to the jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator
to decide the dispute between the parties, the petitioner is not precluded from raising such plea
before the arbitrator during the proceeding.
2. SBP & Co. Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr. reported at (2005) 8 SCC 610; Konkan
Railway Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mehul Construction Co. reported at 2000 (7) SCC 201 : The
arbitrator would be competent to decide the jurisdictional issue notwithstanding a reference is
made to him as the order appointing an arbitrator is an administrative order and not a judicial
order. All appointments made are to be treated as valid but any objections to be treated as per
Section 16 of the Act.
3. M/s. Sree Kamatchi Amman Constructions Vs. Divisional Railway Manager (Works),
Palghat & Ors. reported at AIR 2010 SC 3337;Union of India Vs. Krafters Engineering &
Leasing Pvt. Ltd.Reported at (2011) 7 SCC 279;Union of India Vs. M/s. Concrete Products
and Const. Co. Etc.reported at AIR 2014 SC 1914 : The awarding of interest on the security
amount is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the arbitrator could not have disregarded the
expressed bar in contract against the claim for interest on such security amount.

Authorities cited by Respondent :-

1. Bharat Aluminium Company Vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. reported at
(2016) 4 SCC 126 : For the proposition that in the matter of construction and/or interpretation of
deeds and documents, the intention of the parties are required to be taken into consideration.

Authorities cited in the Judgement:

1. Deep Trading Company Vs. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. reported at (2013) 4 SCC 35 :
"Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 makes provision for making an
application to the Chief Justice concerned for appointment of an arbitrator in three
circumstances: (a) a party fails to act as required under the agreed procedure, or (b) the parties
or the two appointed arbitrators fail to reach an agreement expected of them under that
procedure, or (c) a person, including an institution, fails to perform any function entrusted to
him or it under that procedure. If one of the three circumstances is satisfied, the Chief Justice
may exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 11(6) and appoint the arbitrator. In the
present case, the dealer moved the Chief Justice under Section 11(6)(a) for the appointment of

 an arbitrator as the respondent Corporation failed to act as required under Clause 29 (the
arbitration clause).”
2. Punj Lloyd Ltd. Vs. Petronet MHB Ltd. reported at (2006) 2 SCC 638 which would be
evident from Paragraphs 15 to 20.

Cliff Navigation S. A vs Lmj International Limited on

23 July, 2015
Authorities cited by Petitioner
1. Visa International Limited Vs. Continental Resources (USA) Limited reported at 2009 (2)
SCC 55 Paragraph 32 : To argue that when it is found that the said two clauses of the Fixture
Note are inconsistent with one another and irreconcilable, no effect can be given to such
document.
2. Radha Sundar Dutta Vs. Mohd. Jahadur Rahim & Ors. reported at AIR 1959 SC 25 at page
30 : In the alternative, it is submitted that it is well-settled that when there are conflicts between
two Clauses of an Agreement, the earlier Clause shall prevail.
3. Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs. Akash Oftifibre Ltd. & Anr. reported at 2005 (7) SCC 234,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Paragraphs 86, 87 & 101 to 106 has held that all
applications under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are to be decided by
holding a trial involving all kinds of evidence including oral evidence.
4. Shri Lal Mahal Limited Vs. Progetto Grano SPA reported at 2014 (2) SCC 433.
5. Narayan Prasad Lohia Vs. Nikunj Lohia & Ors. reported at 2002 (3) SCC 572 Paragraphs
16 to 19, the Apex Court held that an award made by an Arbitral Tribunal having two arbitrators
only is not even a ground for setting aside of the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996.
6. Anita Garg Vs. Glencore Grain Totterdam B.V. reported at 2011 (4) Arb LR 58 Paragraph 27,
it was held that the law laid down in Narayan Prasad Lohia (supra) is still good law, i.e., even
after the S.B.P judgment of the Supreme Court.

Authorities cited in the judgement

1. Radha Sundar Dutta Vs. Mohd. Jahadur Rahim & Ors. reported at AIR 1959 SC 25 : General
principle that the Court would be required to ascertain the intention from the entire content of
the deed. It is stated that if, in fact, there is a conflict between the early clause and the later

 clause and it is not possible to give effect to all of them then the rule of construction is well-
establish that that it is the earlier clause that must override the later clauses and not vice versa.
2. Lord Wrenbury stated in Forbes vs. Git reported at (1922) 1 AC 256 : "If in a deed an earlier
clause is followed by a later clause which destroys altogether the obligation created by the
earlier clause, the later clause is to be rejected as repugnant and the earlier clause prevails. In
this case the two clauses cannot be reconciled and the earlier provision in the deed prevails over
the later.”

Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Venus Engineering

Concern on 28 February, 2017
Authorities cited by the Petitioner.
1. Union of India Vs. Bright Power Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported at (2015) 9 SCC 695 and
Union of India Vs. Krafters Engineering & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. reported at (2011) 7 SCC 279
the Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration the Board of Trustees (supra) held
that the said decision is no more a good law in view of a subsequent decision in Sayed Ahmed
and Co. v. State of U.P. reported at (2009) 12 SCC 26.
2. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. -versus- Saw Pipes Ltd. reported at (2003) 5 Supreme
Court Cases 705; M/s. Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. -versus- M/s. Chowgule
Brothers & Ors. reported at AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3543 and Ramnath International
Construction Pvt. Ltd. -versus- Union of India and Anr. reported at 2006(4) Arb. LR
385(SC) : An Arbitral Tribunal is not a court of law. Its orders are not judicial orders. Its
functions are not judicial functions. It cannot exercise its power ex debito justitiae. The
jurisdiction of the arbitrator being confined to the four corners of the agreement, he can only
pass such an order which may be the subject-matter of reference.

Authorities Cited by the Respondent.

1. Madnani Construction Corpn. (P) Ltd. v. Union of India reported at (2010) 1 SCC 549 and it
is submitted that in the said decision it has been categorically held that such clause would not
denude the power of the arbitrator to allow interest pendente lite.
2. Bholanath Karmakar & Ors. Vs. Madanmohan Karmakar & Ors. reported at AIR 1988 Cal 1
Paragraph 14 and Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported at
(2014)16 SCC 623 Paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 : In which the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that

 it is often encountered in High Courts that two or more mutually irreconcilable decisions of the
Supreme Court are cited at the Bar.

Authorities cited in the Judgement :

1. Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa & Ors. VS. G.C. Roy reported at
(1992) 1 SCC 508 Paragraphs 43 and 44 which state:- “The question still remains whether
arbitrator has the power to award interest pendente lite, and if so on what principle. We must
reiterate that we are dealing with the situation where the agreement does not provide for grant of
such interest nor does it prohibit such grant In other words, we are dealing with a case where the
agreement is silent as to award of interest. On a conspectus of aforementioned decisions, the
following principles emerge:i)A person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately
entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called
interest, compensation or damages. This basic consideration is as valid for the period the dispute
is pending before the arbitrator as it is for the period prior to the arbitrator entering upon the
reference. This is the principle of Section 34, C.P.C., and there is no reason or principle to hold
otherwise in the case of arbitrator.(ii) an arbitrator is an alternative form for resolution of
disputes arising between the parties. If so, he must have the power to decide all the disputes or
differences arising between the parties. If the arbitrator has no power to award interest pendente
lite, the party claiming it would have to approach the Court for that purpose, even though he
may have obtained satisfaction in respect of other claims from the arbitrator. This would lead to
multiplicity of proceedings.(iii) An arbitrator is the creature of an agreement It is open to the
parties to confer upon him such powers and prescribe such procedure for him to follow, as they
think fit, so long as they are not opposed to law. (The proviso to Section 41 and Section 3 of
Arbitration Act illustrate this point). All the same, the agreement must be in conformity with
law. The arbitrator must also act and make his award in accordance with the general law of the
land and the agreement.(iv) Over the years, the English and Indian Courts have acted on the
assumption that where the agreement does not prohibit and a party to the reference makes a
claim for interest, the arbitrator must have the power to award interest pendente lite. Thawardas
has not been followed in the later decisions of this Court. It has been explained and
distinguished on the basis that in that case there was no claim for interest but only a claim for
unliquidated damages. It has been said repeatedly that observations in the said judgment were
not intended to lay down any such absolute or universal rule as they appear to, on first
impression. Until Jena's case almost all the Courts in the country had upheld the power of the

 arbitrator to award interest pendente lite. Continuity and certainty is a highly desirable feature of
law.(v) Interest pendente lite is not a matter of substantive law, like interest for the period
anterior to reference (pre-reference period). For doing complete justice between the parties, such
power has always been inferred.
2. Union of India Vs. Ambica Construction reported at (2016) 6 SCC 36.

Union Of India vs A.K. Mukherjee on 14 November,

2017.
Authorities in the Judgement.
1. Oil & National Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Saw Pipes Ltd. reported at (2003) 5 Supreme Court
Cases 705; M/s. Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. -versus- M/s. Chowgule Brothers &
Ors. reported at AIR 2010 Supreme Court Cases 3543 and Ramnath International
Construction Pvt. Ltd. - versus- Union of India & Anr. reported at 23006 (4) Arb. LR 385(SC)
: An arbitral Tribunal is not a court of law. Its orders are not judicial orders. Its functions are not
judicial functions. It cannot exercise its power ex debito justitiae. The jurisdiction of the
arbitrator being confined to the four corners of the agreement, he can only pass such an order
which may be the subject-matter of reference.
2. Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority, 2015 (3) SCC 49 : Once it is found that
the arbitrators' approach is not arbitrary or capricious then he is the last word on facts.
3. Indu Engineering & Textiles Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority, 2001 (5) SCC 691 :
When the view taken by the arbitrator was a possible or a plausible one, on his analysis of
evidence and interpretation of contractual and/or statutory provisions and did not suffer from
any manifest error, it was not open to the Court to interfere with the award.

Food Corporation Of India vs Gopal Chandra

Mukherjee on 14 September, 2016.
Authorities in the Judgement.
1. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd Vs. L.K. Ahuja reported at (2004) 5 SCC 109 Paragraph 11 which
reads:-There are limitations upon the scope of interference in awards passed by an arbitrator.
When the arbitrator has applied his mind to the pleadings, the evidence adduced before him

 and the terms of the contract, there is no scope for the court to reappraise the matter as if this
were an appeal and even if two views are possible, the view taken by the arbitrator would
prevail. So long as an award made by an arbitrator can be said to be one by a reasonable
person no interference is called for. However, in cases where an arbitrator exceeds the terms
of the agreement or passes an award in the absence of any evidence, which is apparent on the
face of the award, the same could be set aside.
2. McDermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. reported at 2006 (11) SCC 181
Paragraphs 55 to 57: “Another important change which has been made by reason of the
provisions of the 1996 Act is that unlike the 1940 Act, the Arbitrator is required to assign
reasons in support of the award. A question may invariably arise as to what would be meant
by a reasoned award.”
3. In Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Mehul Construction Company [(2000) 7 SCC 201],
the Court emphasized the mandatoriness of giving reasons unless the arbitration agreement
provides otherwise.”
4. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons; 1992 Supp (2)
SCC 312, it was held: “It is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or
excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the
finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the
blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law.”
5. In Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. Of Police; (1999) 2 SCC 10, it was held: “A broad distinction
has, therefore, to be maintained between the decision which are perverse and those which are
not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and
no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some
evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, howsoever
compendious it may be, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings
would not be interfered with.”
6. In P.R. Shah, Shares & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. v. B.H.H. Securities (P) Ltd; (2012) 1 SCC
594, this Court held:- “A court does not sit in appeal over the award of an Arbitral Tribunal
by reassessing or reappreciating the evidence. An award can be challenged only under the
grounds mentioned in Section 34(2) of the Act. The Arbitral Tribunal has examined the facts
and held that both the second respondent and the appellant are liable. The case as put forward
by the first respondent has been accepted. Even the minority view was that the second
respondent was liable as claimed by the first respondent, but the appellant was not liable only

 on the ground that the arbitrators appointed by the Stock Exchange under Bye-law 248, in a
claim against a non-member, had no jurisdiction to decide a claim against another member.
The finding of the majority is that the appellant did the transaction in the name of the second
respondent and is therefore, liable along with the second respondent. Therefore, in the
absence of any ground under Section 34(2) of the Act, it is not possible to re-examine the
facts to find out whether a different decision can be arrived at.”
7. State of West Bengal Vs. B.K. Mondal & Sons reported at AIR 1962 SC 779 in Paragraphs
13 to 18 : The following conditions must be satisfied in order to in a claim passed in Section
70 of the Indian Contract Act which are:-(i) the person must do it lawfully,(ii) the same was
not intended to be done gratuitously and(iii) the person must enjoy the benefit of such doings.
Books
1. Bachawat's Law of Arbitration and Conciliation, Fourth Edition, pages 855-856, it is
stated: “'Reason' is a ground or motive for a belief or a course of action, a statement in
justification or explanation of belief or action. It is in this sense that the award must state
reasons for the amount awarded.”

Lmj International Limited vs Swiss Singapore

Overseas ... on 27 March, 2015.
Authorities cited by Petitioner.
1. Fuerst Day Lawson Vs. Jindal Exports Limited (AIR 2011 SC 2649 Paragraph 72: 2011(8)
SCC 333) : the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a complete code.
2. Paragraph 79 of the judgment in Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra reported at
(2011) 3 SCC 1 : Act is to be held as a complete code when, inter alia, the Act itself provides
for an adjudicatory mechanism and exclusion of the application of other statutes (expressly or
by necessary implication).
3. Deokinandan Vs. Basantalal reported at AIR 1941 Cal 527; Ashok Kalra Vs. Akash
Towers reported at MANU/DE/3028/2013 Paragraphs 18 and 19 : so far as domestic award
is concerned, the law is the same both under the 1940 Act as well as 1996 Act. No suit lies for
setting aside of a domestic award.
4. Port of Calcutta Vs. Louis Dreyfus G.A.No.1997 of 2014, C.S.No.220 of 2014 dated 29th
September, 2014, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chatterjee Petrochem Co.

 & Anr. Vs. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. reported at 2014 (1) Cal LT 83(SC) on this
proposition was expressly followed. It was held:-"The judgment cited at the bar would show
that Section 5 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act is a general principle which would be
applicable to all arbitration proceedings irrespective of fact whether it is a domestic
arbitration or an international arbitration.”
5. Enercon (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Enercon GMBH & Anr. reported at 2014 (5) SCC 1 in
Paragraph 90 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the need for least
intervention by Courts in arbitration matter in view of Section 5 of the Act.
6. Bharat Aluminium Company Vs. Kaiser Aluminium reported at 2012(9) SCC 552
Paragraphs 123, 151 to 153 : The seat of arbitration determines the curial law that is to
apply. In the instant case, the seat of arbitration is Singapore and the proceeding for setting
aside of the award could have been filed only before the appropriate court in Singapore.

Authorities cited by Respondent

1. Ramesh Gobindram vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf reported at AIR 2010 SC 2897
Paragraph 5 : 2010(8) SCC 726 (Paragraphs 12 & 13) : The ouster of jurisdiction of a Civil
Court has to be strictly construed. There has to be some specific provision to that effect for
the same.
2. Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. vs. Aksh Optifibre Ltd. & Anr. reported at 2005 (7) SCC 234
has held that greater judicial intervention is contemplated in Part-II of the 1996 Act
(Paragraph 73) and while deciding enforceability of a foreign award, the same has to be tried
out by a full trial by invoking all kinds of evidence including oral evidence (Paragraphs
87,100,101,104 and 105).
3. R.V. Price reported at (1871) LR 6 QB 411 it was held by Cockburn CJ that -"I think that
when the legislature, in legislating in pari materia and substituting certain provision in that
Act for those which existed in the earlier statute, has entirely changed the language of the
enactment, it must be taken to have done so with some intention and motive.”
4. In D.R. Fraser & Co. Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue reported at AIR 1949 PC 120, it
was held that-"When an amending Act alters the language of the principal statute, the
alteration must be taken to have been made deliberately.”
5. In (1967) 2 WLR 136: (1966) 3 All ER 863 (Jeffs v. New Zealand Dairy Production), the
Privy Council while considering repeal of New Zealand Dairy Board Act, 1953 by New
Zealand Dairy Production and Marketing Board Act, 1961 and the interaction between

 Section 11 of the old Act and Section 13 of the new Act held that the change in language was
no accidental and gave rise to the inference that the Parliament deliberately refrained from
giving the Board power to delegate any of its powers and functions to a committee with the
consent of the Minister.
6. In Lalu Prasad Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2010 (5) SCC 1, Paragraph 39),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court approved D.R.
7. In Serish Maji v. Nisith Kumar Dolui reported at 1999 (1) CHN 365 : The fact that Section
5 or its principles have been specifically incorporated in these various sections and their
omission from Section 8 appears to be deliberate evidencing the intention of the legislature
not to grant an applicant under Section 8 similar benefit. By this omission in Section 8 it
would appear that the sections of the Limitation Act have been expressly excluded within the
meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act.”
8. Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. reported at 2008 (4) SCC
190.
Books
1. Principles of Statutory Interpretation by G.P.Singh was quoted -"Just as use of same
language in a later statute as was used in an earlier one in pari materia is suggestive of the
intention of the legislature that the language so used in the later statute is used in the same as
in the earlier one, change of language in a later statute in pari materia is suggestive that
change of interpretation is intended.”

Authorities Cited in the Judgement

1. In Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra reported at (2011) 3 SCC 1 it was held:-The
Expression 'complete code in itself' has not been defined precisely. However, it will be of
some help to understand what the word 'code' means.
2. Chloro Controls India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. & Ors. reported
at 2013 (1) SCC 641 : “There cannot be any doubt that in terms of Section 9 CPC, the courts
in India shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature. Further, this section gives a right
to a person to institute a suit before the court of competent jurisdiction. However, the
language of Section 9 CPC itself makes it clear that the civil courts have jurisdiction to try all
suits of civil nature except the suits of which taking cognizance is either expressly or
impliedly barred. In other words, the jurisdiction of the court and the right to a party

 emerging from Section 9 CPC is not an absolute right, but contains inbuilt restrictions. It is an
accepted principle that jurisdiction of the court can be excluded.”
3. National Highway Authority of India Vs. Oriental Structure Engineer Ltd. - Gammon
India Ltd. (JV) reported at AIR 2013 Delhi 67 held that 1996 Act in effect displaces all such
aspects of substantive and procedural law in respect of which there is an explicit or implied
reference in the 1996 Act.
4. Enercon (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Enercon GMBH & Anr. reported at 2014 (5) SCC 1 in
Paragraph 90 the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the need for least intervention by
Courts in arbitration matter in view of Section 5 of the Act.
5. Bharat Aluminium Company Vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. reported at
2012 (9) SCC 552 in Paragraph 176 it was held that as a matter of law, an inter-parte suit
simply for interim relief pending arbitrations, even if it be limited for the purpose of
restraining dissipation of assets would not be maintainable.
6. Reliance Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India reported at 2014 (7) SCC 603 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-"We are also of the opinion that since the ratio of law laid down
in Balco has been made prospective in operation by the Constitution Bench itself, we are
bound by the decision rendered in Bhatia international.”
Books
1. P. Ramanatha Aiyar's 'The Law Lexicon' (2nd Edn. 1997) as under:'A general collection or
compilation of laws by public authority; a system of law; a systematic and complete body of
law, on any subject such as Civil Procedure Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, Penal code.
Etc.

Sleepwell Industries Co. Ltd vs Lmj International Ltd

on 22 August, 2017.
Authorities Cited by Award Holders.
1. Toepfer International Asia Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Thapar Ispat Ltd., reported in 2000 (1) Arb. LR
230(Bombay) Paragraph 19 : No prayer for declaration has been made in the application that
the foreign award is enforceable.
2. Waidhan Engineering & Industries Private Limited vs. The Board of Trustees For The
Port of Kolkata AP 112 of 2008 : Before arbitration clause could be invoked, the parties are

 required to first make an attempt to amicably settle their disputes and only upon failure, the
parties could refer their disputes to the arbitration as per GAFTA clause for rice and
arbitration rules 125.
3. Shrilal Mahal Ltd. Vs. Progetto Grano SPA reported at (2014) 2 SCC 433 : The public
challenge to the enforceability of the foreign award as opposed to public policy is not as wide
as Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
4. Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Hanifa & Ors. reported at (1976) 4 SCC 780 :
To contend that present application is barred under res judicata.
5. Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar & Anr. reported at (2005) 1 SCC 787 as also by
the English Courts in Fidelitas Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. V/O Exportchleb (1966) 1 QB 630
and SCF Finance Company Ltd. Vs. Masri reported at 1987 (1) All E.R. 194 : A brief
guideline of Issue Estoppel and Cause of Action Estoppel .

Authorities cited by Applicants :

1. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority reported at
2015 (3) SCC 49 Paragraphs 40 to 42 and Delhi Development Authority Vs. R.S. Sharma
and Co., New Delhi reported at 2008 (13) SCC 80 Paragraph 21 : The impugned award was
induced and/or affected by fraud and, therefore, is in conflict with the Public Policy of India.
2. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath & Ors. reported at (1994) 1 SCC 1 Para 5 :
Suppression of the said letter and e-mail both dated February 14, 2011 is an act of fraud upon
the Arbitral Tribunal and it vitiates the award.
3. Mathuradas Goverdhandass Vs. Khusiram Benarshilal reported at 53 CWN 873 and
Jasraj Inder Singh Vs. Hemraj Multanchand reported at AIR 1977 SC 1011 : The Tribunal
has no jurisdiction to make out a new case or to consider the dispute not raised by the
claimant in their claim submission.
4. Shamsher Jute Mills Ltd. v. Sethia (London) Ltd. reported at (1987) 1 Lloyds Law Report
388 at Pages 390-393 which considers W.J. Alan & Co. v. El Nasr Export & Import Co.
reported at (1972) 2 All ER 127 and Ficom S.A. v. Sociedad Cadex Limitada reported at
(1980) 2 Llyod's Law Report 188 : The seller having not complied with the terms cannot
insist that notwithstanding such compliance either the bank or the buyer would be liable to
pay for the balance of amount.
5. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Western Geco International Ltd. reported at
2014 (9) SCC 263 Paragraph 38 in support of the contention that the objection with regard to

 the enforceability of the award on the ground of public policy can be raised even without any
pleading.

Authorities cited in the Judgement :

1. Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar & Anr. reported at (2005) 1 SCC 787 as also by
the English Courts in Fidelitas Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. V/O Exportchleb (1966) 1 QB 630
and SCF Finance Company Ltd. Vs. Masri reported at 1987 (1) All E.R. 194 : A brief
guideline of Issue Estoppel and Cause of Action Estoppel .
2. Renusagar Power Company vs. General Electric Company reported at 1990 (92) Bom.
L.R. 70, paragraphs 109 to 113 : It was held that the challenge to enforcement of the foreign
award on the ground of public policy should receive a narrow interpretation. It would not be
enough to show that the award is contrary to our laws.
3. Murlidhar Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1624 the
Supreme Court considered the public policy aspect of the Rent Control legislation. The
Supreme Court has observed (pg. 28):"The expression 'public policy' has an entirely
different meaning from 'policy of the law' and one much more extensive............... It seems
clear that the conception of public policy is not only now quite distinct from that of the policy
of law but has in fact always been so except in some exceptional instances of confusion
which have had no substantial effect on the general course of authority.
4. Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Mairye), reported in A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 781 the Supreme
Court considered whether a wagering contract is contrary to public policy. It held that "the
common law of England and that of India have never struck down contracts of wager on the
ground of public policy; indeed they have always been held to be not illegal notwithstanding
the fact that the statute declared them void”.
5. AIR 1994 SC 860 (Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. Vs. General Electric Co.). It was held that
the defence of public policy should be construed narrowly.
6. ONGC Ltd. Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. reported at (2003) 5 SCC 705, it is stated:-"From the
discussion made by this Court in Saw Pipes in paragraph 18, paragraph 22 and paragraph 31
of the Report, it can be safely observed that while accepting the narrow meaning given to the
expression "public policy" in Renusagar in the matters of enforcement of foreign award, there
was departure from the said meaning for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the Court in
setting aside the award under Section 34.”

 7. Shamsher Jute Mills Ltd. v. Sethia (London) Ltd. reported at (1987) 1 Lloyds Law Report
388 at Pages 390-393.
Books
1. Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn. Vol. 8, pg.130, it is said that - "Any agreement which
tends to be injurious to the public or against the public good is void as being contrary to
public policy... It seems however that this branch of the law will not be extended.
2. Vervaeka v. Smith10; Dicey & Morris, The Conflict of Laws, 11 th Edn., Vol. I p. 92;
Cheshire & North, Private International Law, 12th Edn., pp. 128 : A distinction is drawn
while applying the said rule of public policy between a matter governed by domestic law and
a matter involving conflict of laws. The application of the doctrine of public policy in the
field of conflict of laws is more limited than that in the domestic law and the courts are
slower to invoke public policy in cases involving a foreign element than when a purely
municipal legal issue is involved.
3. R.H. Graveson : Conflict of Laws, 7th Edn., p. 165: "This concern of law in the protection
of social institutions is reflected in its rules of both municipal and conflict of laws. Although
the concept of public policy is the same in nature in these two spheres of law, its application
differs in degree and occasion, corresponding to the fact that transactions containing a foreign
element may constitute a less serious threat to municipal institutions than would purely local
transactions.”
4. Jack on Documentary Credits, 4th Edition has also discussed this aspect of the matter. The
learned Author observed:-"Whether the credit is conditional or absolute payment, if the seller
presents documents to the bank that do not comply with the credit and are rejected the seller
cannot sue the buyer directly unless the buyer has actually obtained the goods. This is so
whether or not the goods conform to the contract.