DIPAK MISRA, A. M. KHANWILKAR, D. Y. CHANDRACHUD
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Hardy Exploration and Production (India) INC – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Dipak Misra, CJI.
The present appeal arose from the final judgment and order dated 27th July, 2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO No. 59 of 2016 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal preferred by the Union of India, the appellant herein, assailing the order dated 9th July, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP No. 693 of 2013 and the order dated 20th January, 2016 passed in Review Petition No. 400 of 2015 in OMP No. 693 of 2013. The Division Bench took note of the fact that the appellant had challenged the legal propriety and correctness of the award made by the Arbitrators in favour of the respondents under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity “the Act”). The said application was contested by the respondent raising many a ground, but the thrust of the objection related to the maintainability of the application under Section 34 of the Act. It was contended before the High Court that the courts in India do not have the jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 34 of the Act to challenge the legality of the award in question. The learned Single Judge, vide order date
Ashok Leyland Limited v. State of T.N
Union of India v. Hardy Exploration and Production (India) INC
Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. v. ONGC Ltd.
Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A.
Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd.
Videocon Industries Limited v. Union of India
Dozco India Private Ltd. v. Doosan Infracore Co. Limited
Bharat Aluminium Company v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services INC
Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Enercon GMBH
Reliance Industries Limited v. Union of India
Harmony Innovation Shipping Ltd. v. Gupta Coal India Limited
Union of India v. Reliance Industries Limited
Eitzen Bulk A/S v. Ashapura Minechem Limited
IMAX Corporation v. E-City Entertainment (India) Pvt. Lid.
Roger Shashoua v. Mukesh Sharma
Indtel Technical Services Private Ltd. v. W.S. Atkins Rail Limited
Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. VS Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Inc. - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 596: This case explicitly states that the judgments in Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A., (2002) 4 SCC 105 and Venture Global Engineering have been overruled, with the overruling applying prospectively. It clarifies that Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not apply to international commercial arbitrations held outside India, and that the previous judgments are no longer good law for future cases. This clearly marks it as a case that has been overruled or rejected in subsequent treatment.
[Followed/Consistent Treatment]
Hasmukh Prajapati VS Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. Through Its Managing Director - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 119: The case mentions that the Supreme Court held certain principles and relies on Hardy Exploration (supra), indicating it is treated as a relevant and correctly decided case within the context of the discussion.
Hindustan Zinc Limited VS Glencore International A. G. Giag - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 206, Government of West Bengal VS Chatterjee Petrochem (Mauritius) Co. - 2020 0 Supreme(Cal) 673, Zapdor-Ubc-Abnjv Delhi VS U. O. I. , Thru. General Manager Northern Railway New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 1003, Gujarat Jhm Hotels Ltd. VS Rajasthali Resorts and Studios Limited - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 346, Honey Bee Multitrading Pvt. Ltd. VS Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 345, M/s Adie Broswon Breweries Pvt. Ltd. VS M/s Kla Construction Technologies Private Limited - 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 2412, Big Charter Private Limited VS Ezen Aviation Pty Ltd - 2020 0 Supreme(Del) 960, Hasmukh Prajapati VS Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. Through Its Managing Director - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 119, Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. VS Aditya Kumar Chatterjee - 2022 4 Supreme 337, Imax Corporation VS E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 3 Supreme 130, Videocon Industries Limited VS Union of India - 2011 4 Supreme 35, Reliance Industries Limited VS Union of India - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 447, Harmony Innovation Shipping Ltd. VS Gupta Coal India Ltd. - 2015 2 Supreme 346, Enercon (India) Ltd. VS Enercon GMBH - 2014 1 Supreme 653, Ashok Leyland LTD. VS State Of T. N. - 2004 5 Supreme 115, Sumitomo Heavy Industries VS Ongc LTD. - 1997 10 Supreme 157, Indtel Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. VS W. S. Atkins Rail Ltd. - 2008 8 Supreme 98, Venture Global Engineering VS Satyam Computer Services Ltd. - 2008 1 Supreme 1: These cases refer to Hardy Exploration and other cases as authoritative or binding, indicating they are treated as good law or relevant precedents, although some may be distinguished or have specific nuances. For example, references to Hardy Exploration in multiple cases suggest consistent treatment as valid authority.
Parsvnath Developers Limited VS Devendra Singh Yadav - 2025 0 Supreme(P&H) 52: The case involves multiple parties and references Hardy Exploration, implying it is treated as a relevant authority in arbitration and contractual issues.
UNION OF INDIA VS RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED - 2015 7 Supreme 166, Bhatia International VS Bulk Trading S. A - 2002 2 Supreme 395, Videocon Industries Limited VS Union of India - 2011 4 Supreme 35, Harmony Innovation Shipping Ltd. VS Gupta Coal India Ltd. - 2015 2 Supreme 346, Enercon (India) Ltd. VS Enercon GMBH - 2014 1 Supreme 653, Ashok Leyland LTD. VS State Of T. N. - 2004 5 Supreme 115, Sumitomo Heavy Industries VS Ongc LTD. - 1997 10 Supreme 157, Indtel Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. VS W. S. Atkins Rail Ltd. - 2008 8 Supreme 98, Venture Global Engineering VS Satyam Computer Services Ltd. - 2008 1 Supreme 1: These cases discuss principles of arbitration law, jurisdiction, and the applicability of Part I, often citing Hardy Exploration as a key authority, indicating they are treated as consistent with or relying on Hardy Exploration’s principles.
Zapdor-Ubc-Abnjv Delhi VS U. O. I. , Thru. General Manager Northern Railway New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 1003: While it discusses arbitration agreements and the law applicable, treatment of Hardy Exploration here is not explicitly stated, making its treatment somewhat uncertain.
M/s Adie Broswon Breweries Pvt. Ltd. VS M/s Kla Construction Technologies Private Limited - 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 2412: The case mentions arguments and references Hardy Exploration but does not clarify whether it treats Hardy Exploration as good law or overruled.
Big Charter Private Limited VS Ezen Aviation Pty Ltd - 2020 0 Supreme(Del) 960: Similar to above, references Hardy Exploration but treatment status is not explicitly clarified.
: Discusses the seat of arbitration and legal principles, referencing Hardy Exploration, but treatment status (whether it follows or criticizes) is not explicitly stated.
Dozco India P. Ltd. VS Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd. - 2010 7 Supreme 194: Discusses jurisdiction and arbitration law principles, referencing Hardy Exploration, but treatment clarity is lacking.
Harmony Innovation Shipping Ltd. VS Gupta Coal India Ltd. - 2015 2 Supreme 346: Clarifies that Bharat Aluminium did not overrule Bhatia International, and references application of arbitration law, but treatment of Hardy Exploration is not explicitly confirmed.
Summary:
The primary case identified as overruled is **Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. VS Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Inc. - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 596**, which explicitly states the overruling of Bhatia International and Venture Global Engineering.
Most other cases appear to follow, rely on, or treat Hardy Exploration as good law, though some references are less explicit about their treatment.
A few cases have ambiguous or unclear treatment based solely on the provided summaries, and are thus categorized as uncertain.
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.