1. What were the main points of dispute between the parties?

The main point of disputes are mentioned below-

TSU(Plaintiff) suffered huge losses as the goods were deemed to be defective
and were rejected by the buyers. The goods were sold by the way of recovery or
salvage.
The quality requirements specified in the contract weren't met. Further which can
be stated as Thyssen could not claim damages, since its nominated
representative/agency had inspected the goods prior to dispatch. Prime cold rolled
mild steel sheets in coil in compliance with ASTM A568 completely oiled with
sufficient oil to protect the Cold Rolled Coil ("CRC") against water and moisture
and with cut/slit edges." These were the express terms of the contract. This term,
according to Thyssen, was breached and this became the main point of dispute.
The entire scope of the Award in relation to the first lot that was mentioned focuses
around the definition and significance of the term. Another contentious matter
relates to the arbitrator's method of measuring damages.

2. Cite relevant portions of statutes determining the cause of action?

i) Section 73 of the Indian Contracts Act

When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive,
from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to
him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which
the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it. The
contract in this case did not fulfill the requirements of the Indian Contracts Act.
ii) Sale of Good Act
Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act provides for two types of sales: absolute or conditional. In
this case, TSU claimed that the first lot of steel received was of low quality, which led to a
disagreement regarding the quality specified in the contract. Consequently, TSU initiated
legal action against SAIL and a salvage sale was arranged, resulting in a total sum of USD
3,838,824.58 being realized.
iii) Arbitration Act
ACT No. 26 OF 1996. [16th August, 1996.] An Act to consolidate and amend the law
relating to domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration and enforcement of
foreign arbitral awards as also to define the law relating to conciliation and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto. TSU had used an arbitrator to provide their
allegation of faulty quality of steel with regards to the first lot.

iv) Code of Civil Procedure:

The Civil Procedure Code regulates every action in civil courts and the parties before it till
the execution of the degree and order. The case also evoked the Code of Civil procedure
1908, with regards to the administration of civil proceedings.

3. What precedents were cited by the parties before the Court?

 Champsey Bhara and Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd. AIR 1923 PC 66
 Arosan Enterprises Limited v. Union of India and Anr.
 State of Rajasthan v. Puri Construction Co. Ltd.
 State of Tamilnadu v. Anandam Viswanathan 1989 (1) SC 613 6. Lord President
Cooper in Davis v. Edinburgh Magistrate reported in 1953 Sc 34 7. Murari Lal v.
State of M.P
 Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India and Anr
 C.B. Tanwar v. DDA (1999) 80 DLT 556
 Murlidhar Chiranjilal v. Harishchadra Dwarkadas
 Union of India v. A.L. Rallia Ram
 Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas and Co. and Ors
 Harinder Anand v. DDA
 Trivenibai and Anr. v. Lilabai 1959 SC 620.

4. What was the final judgement?

The final judgment in the case was that the award given by the arbitrator was set aside, and
the suit was dismissed. The Court held that the arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction in
making findings beyond the terms of the agreement and had committed grave errors of law
and facts, making the award unsustainable.
The Court found that the dispute between the parties concerned the terms of the contract and
the determination of damages for non-delivery of goods under the FOB contract. The Court
held that the cause of action arose when the seller failed to deliver the goods on the due date,
and the buyer suffered a loss as a result of the seller's breach of contract. The Court also held
that the measure of damages for such a breach was the difference between the market price of
the goods on the due date and the price at which the buyer could have obtained the goods at
the time of breach.
The Court relied on several precedents to arrive at its decision, including the decisions in
Murlidhar Chiranjilal v. Harishchandra Dwarkadas and Anr. and Union of India v. Raman
Iron Foundry, which established the principles governing FOB contracts and the
determination of damages for breach of contract. In conclusion, the case highlights the
importance of adhering to the terms of the contract in the determination of damages for
breach of contract and the limited jurisdiction of arbitrators in making findings beyond the
terms of the agreement.
5. What was your takeaway from the case?
My takeaway from this case is the importance of carefully drafting contracts and being clear
on the terms agreed upon by both parties. It also highlights the significance of understanding
the relevant statutes and case laws that may impact the interpretation and enforcement of the
contract. The case also emphasizes the need for arbitrators to stay within their jurisdiction
and to base their decisions on the evidence presented and the terms of the agreement, rather
than introducing their own meaning or views.