SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. N. VENKATACHALIAH, C.J.I., S. C. AGRAWAL AND Dr. A. S. ANAND, JJ.
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd., Appellant
Versus
General Electric Co., Respondent.
Civil Appeal Nos. 71 and 71A of 1990 with 379 of 1992, D/- 7-10-1993.
WITH
General Electric Co., Appellant
Versus
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd., Respondent.
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 227 ,134-A read with 133 – Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 10 and 151 - Foreign Awards Act - Section 8(1)(a), 3 ,7(1)(b) (ii) and 6(2) - Indian Companies Act, 1956 - Foreign Awards Rules - Rule 801(a) - Income-tax Act, 1961 - Section 10(15)(iv)(c) - Protocol and Convention, Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 – Company - Production and sale of electric power - Thermal power plant - Promissory notes - Appellant in C.A. Nos. 71 and 71 A and respondent in C.A. No. is a company incorporated engaged in production and sale of electric power - General Electric Company respondent in C.A. Nos. 71 and 71A and appellant in C.A. No. 370/92, is a company incorporated under laws of State of New York in United States of America and is engaged in business of manufacturing, selling and servicing electrical products and various ancillary activities - After negotiations, parties arrived at an arrangement whereunder General Electric was to supply to equipment and power services for setting up a thermal power plant to be known as Renusagar Power Station - In contract, it was also provided that would execute unconditional negotiable promissory notes in four series (A-B-C-D) in respect of 16 instalments (Article III A 31(a)) and that notes shall be prepared substantially in form shown in attached Exhibit B entitled "Promissory Note" and shall bear interest, at rate of 6.1/2 per annum on outstanding principal balance commencing from 30 months after contract effective date (Article III-A 3(a)) - Held, High Court passing a decree in terms of award is therefore affirmed - Amount paid by during the pendency of these appeals will have to be adjusted against said decretal amount and present liability under this decision has to be determined accordingly - All pending suits, appeals or other proceedings of whatever nature by or against transferor company, viz., shall not abate or be discontinued or in any way be prejudicially affected by reason of transfer of undertaking and that said proceedings may be continued, presented and enforced by or against Renusagar as if scheme had not been made - Scheme of amalgamation does not therefore, in any way affect continuance of proceedings in above appeals in this Court and in these circumstances, Court find no ground for substituting name of Hindalco Industries Ltd as appellant in place - In result, C.A. Nos. 71 and 71A of 1990 and CA. No. 379 of 1992 are dismissed and decree passed by High Court is affirmed with direction that in terms of award an amount of USS 12,333,355.14 is payable to General Electric out of which a sum of US $ 6,289,800.00 has already been paid by Renusagar in discharge of decretal amount and the balance amount payable by under decree is US $ 6,043,555.14 which amount on conversion in Indian rupees at rupee-dollar exchange rate of Rs. 31.53 per dollar prevalent at time of this judgment comes to Rupees - Order Accordingly.
Judgment
S. C. AGRAWAL, J.:- The decision in these appeals would, we hope, mark the culmination of the protracted litigation arising out of a contract entered into by the parties on August 24, 1964 for the supply and erection of a thermal power plant at Renukoot in District Mirzapur, U.P.
2. Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. (for short Renusagar), the appellant in C.A. Nos. 71 and 71 A of 1990 and the respondent in C.A. No. 370/ 92, is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the production and sale of electric power. General Electric Company (for short General Electric), respondent in C.A. Nos. 71 and 71A and appellant in C.A. No. 370/92, is a company incorporated under the laws of the State of New York in United States of America and is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and servicing electrical products and various ancillary activities. After negotiations, the parties arrived at an arrangement whereunder General Electric was to supply to Renusagar the equipment and power services for setting up a thermal power plant to be known as Renusagar Power Station at Renukoot and, on November 27, 1963, Renusagar moved the Government of India for its approval. By its letter dated January 2, 1964, the Government of India gave its approval to the proposals and thereafter a formal contract was executed by the parties on August 24, 1964. Under the said contract, General Electric undertook to supply equipment and services for a plant having a capacity of 135,800 K.W. The total price for the electrical and mechanical equipment, spare parts, freight forwarding services, plant design and consulting services was US $ 13,195,000, The contract price for all electrical and mechanical equipment and spare parts was FAS vessel, U.S.A. port so selected by seller (Article II). All items of the equipment were to be delivered along with vessel at New York not later than 15 months from the contract effective date (which was December 31, 1964) and the erection of the plant was to be completed within 30 months from the contract effective date (Art. IV A I). 10 of the total contract basic price (US $ 1,319,500) was to be paid either in cash or by Letter of Credit. The balance 90 of the price (US $ 11,875,500) plus interest at the rate of 6-1/2 per annum from the 16th to the 30th month of the contract effective date (US $ 900,558,75) totalling US $ 12,776,058.75 was to be paid in 16 equal six monthly instalments commencing from the date of the expiry of 30 months from the contract effective date, and the last instalment was payable on the date of expiry of 120 months from the contract effective date (Article III). Since the contract effective date was December 31, 1964 the first instalment was payable on June 30, 1967 and the last, i.e., 16th instalment was payable on December 31, 1974. In the contract, it was also provided that Renusagar would execute unconditional negotiable promissory notes in four series (A-B-C-D) in respect of the 16 instalments (Article III A 31(a)) and that the notes shall be prepared substantially in the form shown in the attached Exhibit B entitled "Promissory Note" and shall bear interest, at the rate of 6.1/2 per annum on the outstanding principal balance commencing from 30 months after contract effective date (Article III-A 3(a)). A provision was also made that the payment of the full amount of each note shall be unconditionally guaranteed by the United Commercial Bank or other mutually acceptable bank (Art. III-A 3(c)). The contract contained an arbitration clause which provides that any disagreement arising out of or related to the contract which the parties are unable to resolve by sincere negotiation shall be finally settled in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (for short ICC). Each party would appoint one arbitrator and the Court of Arbitration of the ICC would appoint a third arbitrator (Article XVII). It was also agreed that the rights and o
referred to : Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly
Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya
Murlidhar Agarwal v. State of U.P.
Rattan Chand Him Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung
relied on : LIC of India v. Escorts Ltd.
M.G. Wagh v. Jay Engineering Works Ltd.
followed : Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co.
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co.
referred to : General Electric Co. v. Renusagar Power Co.
relied on : Dhanrajamal Gobindram v. Shamji Kalidas and Co.
Trojan and Co. Ltd. v. Nagappa Chettiar
relied on : Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Unique ErecTORs (Gujarat) (P) Ltd.
referred to : V/O TracTORoexport, Moscow v. Tarapore and Co.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.