Back
Delivers on ₹1,889 Crore Jindal ITF-NTPC Arbitral Award
The has delivered a on the validity of a ₹1,889 crore arbitral award in favor of against , referring the matter to a third judge for final resolution. The division bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla disagreed on whether the award, which the tribunal had granted for delays, shortfalls in coal supply, and wrongful termination, should be upheld.
Background of the Dispute
The case arose from a Tripartite Agreement signed in among NTPC, Jindal ITF, and the . Under the agreement, Jindal ITF was to build coal-unloading and material-handling infrastructure and transport imported coal via inland waterways to NTPC's Farakka Thermal Power Plant. Commercial operations began in . Jindal ITF invoked arbitration in , alleging delays and deviations attributable to NTPC and shortfalls in the minimum guaranteed quantity (MGQ) of coal. NTPC terminated the agreement in .
In , the allowed four principal claims totaling about ₹1,889 crore: ₹424 crore for delays and shortfalls during the project period; ₹158 crore and ₹198 crore for NTPC's failure to provide the MGQ during the first and second years of operations; and nearly ₹1,109 crore for wrongful termination, calculated based on the remaining five years of the contract.
The Challenge and Single Judge's Decision
NTPC challenged the award before a Single Judge, who set aside the entire award in , finding it and . Jindal ITF appealed.
The Split Decision
The division bench was divided. Justice C. Hari Shankar upheld the award on the disputed claims, while Justice Om Prakash Shukla agreed with the Single Judge that the award should be set aside. The bench framed the point of difference for reference to a third judge or larger bench.
Justice Hari Shankar’s View: Award Upheld
Justice Hari Shankar held that the Single Judge had of . He found that the 's conclusions on Claim 1 (delays and shortfalls) were based on evidence and were unexceptionable. On Claims 3 and 3A (MGQ for the first two years), he ruled that the tribunal's finding that NTPC failed to supply the guaranteed quantity was "." He noted that the MGQ of 3 MMTPA was never altered by the parties, and the reduction by the did not modify the contract.
On Claim 5A (wrongful termination), Justice Hari Shankar observed that the tribunal could treat the guaranteed MGQ for the remaining five years as a under . He criticized the Single Judge for effectively re-adjudicating the dispute and sitting in appeal over the tribunal's decision.
Justice Shukla’s Dissent: Award Set Aside
Justice Om Prakash Shukla disagreed, holding that the tribunal had by ignoring specific clauses. On Claim 1, he noted that Article 3.2(b) of the TPA provided compensation only by extending the COD, and the tribunal could not replace that with monetary damages. He found that the tribunal awarded compensation for a period when no coal was transported and included operational costs that were never incurred.
On Claims 3 and 3A, Justice Shukla pointed out that the tribunal failed to consider Articles 3.1(c)(ii) and 7.1(c)(vii), which placed the obligation to obtain environmental clearances on JITF as the operator. He agreed with the Single Judge that the reduction of permissible coal by the had to be taken into account.
On Claim 5A, Justice Shukla held that the contract contained a specific compensation mechanism for termination under Article 14.1(c), and the tribunal could not bypass it by treating the MGQ as damages. He concluded that the defects went to the root of the award and justified setting it aside.
Key Observations
From Justice Hari Shankar’s opinion: “The findings of the learned were . The learned Single Judge has, to our mind, misdirected himself by presuming that there was a reduction of the stipulated MGQ of 3 MMTPA, specified in Article 7.3 of the TPA, to 1.5 MMTPA. No such modification took place at any point of time.”
From Justice Shukla’s opinion: “The award for the remaining five years is particularly problematic. The tribunal did not identify words in Article 7.3 by which the parties agreed that the annual MGQ payment would constitute damages upon premature termination. The tribunal inferred the proposition from the commercial object of the project, which is .”
What Next?
The matter has been referred to the Chief Justice of the for assignment to a third judge or a larger bench. Until then, the arbitral award remains in legal uncertainty. The outcome will have significant implications for the scope of under Section 34 and the enforceability of arbitral awards in complex commercial contracts.
