SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, J.
OPG Power Generation Private Limited – Appellants
Versus
Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Private Limited & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3981-3982 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.21017-21018 of 2021) With CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3983-3984 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.21009-21010 of 2021)
Decided On : 20-09-2024
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. These two appeals are directed against a common judgment and order of the High Court1[High Court of Judicature at Madras] dated 1 September 2021 passed in OSA (CAD) Nos. 174-175 of 2021, whereby, exercising powers under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19962 [1996 Act] read with Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 20153 [2015 Act] and Clause 15 of Amended Letters Patent, 1865 read with Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment and order of the Single Judge dated 23 December 2020 and restored the arbitral award dated 13 July 2020.
THE CONTRACT
2. OPG Power Generation Private Ltd (in short OPG - the appellant in the leading appeal), a subsidiary of Gita Power and Infrastructure Private Limited (in short Gita Power – Respondent No.2 (R-2) in the leading appeal, and appellant in the connected appeal), floated a composite tender for design, manufacture, supply, erection and commissioning of air-cooled condenser unit (ACC Unit) with auxiliaries for 160 MW Coal Based Thermal Power Plant (Project) at Gummidipoondi in the State of Tamil Nadu. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions (in short Enexio - Respondent No.1 (R-1) in the leading appeal) bid for the project. After a series of correspondences /negotiations, on 4 March 2013, R-2 issued two separate orders: (i) for design, engineering and supply of one ACC Unit with auxiliaries for 160 MW Coal Based Power Project at Gummidipoondi (in short, Supply Purchase Order); and (ii) for erection and commissioning of one unit of ACC with auxiliaries for 160 MW Coal Based Power Project at Gummidipoondi (in short, Erection Purchase Order). Interestingly, the tender was floated by OPG but the supply and erection orders were issued by its holding company (Gita Power - R-2) on 4 March 2013. However, later, in the month of July 2013, OPG confirmed those orders by issuing two separate orders with same terms and bearing the same date i.e. 4 March 2013.
3. The supply / erection purchase orders with its enclosures contained an arbitration clause in the following terms:
21.1. In the event of any dispute or difference arising under the Order or in connection therewith including any question relating to existence, meaning and interpretation of the Order or any alleged breach thereof that cannot be amicably settled between the Parties, the same shall be referred to the arbitration.
21.2. Arbitration shall be conducted under the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by three arbitrators appointed in accordance with said rules. The place of arbitration will be at Chennai. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in the English language.
21.3. The arbitrators shall take into consideration the will of the Parties as expressed in the Order, the evidence presented, the principles of equity and good faith. The decision(s) of the arbitrators shall be final and both Parties undertake to fulfil and execute the said decision(s).
21.4. Notwithstanding any dispute between the parties, Parties shall not be entitled to withhold/ delay/defer their obligations under the Order and same shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Order.”
4. Clause 6 of the supply purchase order provided:
6.1. Taxes, duties and levies payable and charged by the competent authority such as Excise Duty, Sales Tax, Cess will be borne and paid by the Purchaser.
6.2. The Purchaser shall issue Central Sales Tax Form C or any other Form as applicable for interstate sale.”
5. Likewise, clause 6 of the erection purchase order provided:
6.1. All taxes duties and local levies payable and charged by the Competent Authority for the Services, such as Service Tax, cess, work order tax and other charges which could be levied in connection with and during the Order, whether deducted at source or not, will
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Nortel Networks Pvt. Ltd.
Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI
Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority
UHL Power Company limited v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Lt.
Haryana Tourism Ltd. v. Kandhari Beverages Ltd.
Geo Miller & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Rajasthan Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd
Steel Authority of India Ltd. versus Gupta Brothers Steel Tubes Ltd.
Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. DMRC Ltd.
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Afcons Gunanusa JV
Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya and others
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) v. Saw Pipes Ltd.
D.D.A v. M/s. R.S. Sharma & Co.
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Western Geco International Limited
Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban
State of Chhattisgarh v. SAL Udyog (P) Ltd. (2022) 2 SCC 275 [Para 61]
Patel Engineering Limited v. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd.
Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Limited
Pure Helium India (P) Ltd v. ONGC
McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.
East Asia Marine Engg. & Construction Ltd. (SEAMEC Ltd.) v. Oil India Ltd.
Bharat Aluminium Co. V. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc.
Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd. v. Gujarat ERC
Nabha Power Limited (NPL) v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) and Another
Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India (P) Ltd.
State of Goa v. Praveen Enterprises
Nobocoomar Mookhopadhaya v. Siru Mullick
Tricomdas Coovarji Bhoja versus Sri Gopinath Jiu Thakur
Major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi v. Delhi Development Authority
Khan Bahadur Shapoor Fredom Mazda v. Durga Prasad Chamaria and others
J.C. Budhraja v. Chairman Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. and Others
State of Goa v. Praveen Enterprises
Voltas Ltd. v. Rolta India Ltd.
Kali Das Chaudhuri v. Drapaudi Sundari Dassi
The acknowledgment of liability extends the limitation period for claims, while counterclaims not acknowledged are barred by limitation.
An acknowledgment of liability can extend the limitation period for claims; communications indicating a debt recognition are crucial in determining time-barred status under the Limitation Act.
The court affirmed that a promise to pay a time-barred debt under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act can revive the claim, and the Arbitrator's findings were not subject to re-evaluation under ....
Article 113 of the Limitation Act reads as Any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule, the period of limitation is three years and the time begins to run when th....
The court affirmed that claims for breach of contract are subject to statutory limitation periods, which cannot be extended by claims of continuing breaches.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of limitation principles under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to determine the timeliness of the counter claim and the reject....
Claims in arbitration must adhere to statutory limitation periods; failure to comply renders them non-maintainable, emphasizing the strict nature of limitation under arbitration law.
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.