SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI., D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.
Grasim Industries Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3180 of 2007
Decided On : 19-04-2017
Arbitration Clause - Contractual Dispute - Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Grasim Industries Ltd., was engaged in the manufacture of rayon grade wood pulp in Kerala and obtained grants for an exclusive right to fell bamboos. The dispute arose regarding the enforceability of the arbitration clause in the original agreement dated 03.05.1958 and the limitation period for raising claims under the supplementary agreement dated 27.10.1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the original arbitral clause subsisted and was never extinguished, making the disputes between the parties arbitrable. The court also held that the limitation period stipulated in the supplementary agreement was void under Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the claim should be determined under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.
Issues: The issues involved the enforceability of the arbitration clause and the validity of the limitation period for raising claims under the contractual agreements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the contractual agreements and relevant legal provisions, including the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, to determine the enforceability of the arbitration clause and the validity of the limitation period.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order, appointed an arbitrator, and disposed of the appeal.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.
2. The appellant-Grasim Industries Ltd. was engaged in the manufacture of rayon grade wood pulp, in the Kozhikode District, of the State of Kerala. The appellant company obtained certain grants from the Government of Kerala, for an exclusive right and licence to fell, cut and remove bamboos, from certain areas in the Nilambur valley, for the purpose of converting the same into rayon grade wood pulp and ancillary products. The first of such contractual agreements was executed on 03.05.1958. The same was followed by supplementary contractual agreements dated 06.08.1962, 10.07.1974, 16.11.1976 and 27.10.1988. In the first agreement dated 03.05.1958, clause 16 provided for settlement of disputes arising under the contract, through arbitration. The same read as under:
“If at any time hereafter either during the continuance or after the termination of the Agreement, any doubt, difference or dispute shall arise between the parties hereto touching or concerning their respective rights or privileges hereunder or otherwise arising out of these presents then the same shall be referred to the arbitration of three independent persons as arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party to the reference and the third, by both the parties thereto, and the unanimous decision of the said arbitrators or in the event of any difference of opinion amongst them the decision of the majority of them, shall be binding and conclusive on the parties to the reference and every such reference shall be deemed to be a reference to arbitration under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 and shall be regulated and conducted accordingly.”
3. The successor agreements, after the original agreement, postulated modifications in the terms of the contract. We are only concerned herein, with the supplementary agreement dated 27.10.1988, wherein clause 11 provided as under:
“11. Subject to the modifications mentioned above, the Principal Agreement and the First, Second and Third Supplemental Agreements shall remain in force and effect.”
4. The first question, that arises for consideration is, whether the arbitration clause incorporated in the original agreement, dated 03.05.1958, can be stated to be subsisting and enforceable between the parties, or whether the same stood extinguished? Having given our thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand, keeping in view clause 11 of the supplementary agreement dated 27.10.1988, we are satisfied, that the original arbitral clause, contained in the agreement dated 03.05.1958, subsisted and was never extinguished. We say so because, clause 11, extracted above, clearly expressed, that the supplementary agreements only altered the modifications provided for, and such of the terms and conditions, as were not modified “...shall remain in force and effect...” Since the arbitration clause 16, was admittedly never modified/altered, it would necessarily not be considered as having been extinguished. In the above view of the matter, we must also express our satisfaction, that the disputes between the parties, under their contractual obligations, were arbitrable.
5. In fact, we feel, that the State of Kerala was also aware of the rightful legal position, namely, the applicability of the arbitral clause provided for in the original contractual agreement, dated 03.05.1958. This conclusion of ours is based on the fact, that the State of Kerala, through its communication dated 24.11.2016, actually invoked clause 16 of the parent agreement, dated 03.05.1958, to appoint arbitrators in the matter arising between the same parties, under the same contractual obligation. A relevant extract of the aforesaid letter is reproduced hereunder:
“I am to invite your attention to the reference cited. As per Clause 16 of the Parent Agreement dated 03.05.1958, entered into between the Kerala Government and M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. Government appointed Sri. Varghese IFS, Additional Principal Chief Conservator of For
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.