IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
Steel Authority of India Limited – Petitioner
Versus
M/s Jaldhi Overseas Pte. Ltd. – Respondent
O.M.P. (COMM.) No. 168 of 2021, I.A. Nos. 6068, 6070 of 2021
Decided On : 28-05-2021
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 2(1)(f) and 34 - Business of maritime logistics including vessel operations and chartering - Contract of Affreightment - Award - Disputes between parties arising as a result of SAIL withholding admitted amounts due under Charter Party, were referred to arbitration - Whether equitable set off could be claimed is a matter of discretion of court adjudicating claim - SAIL could not claim it as a matter of right. Clearly, in given facts, SAIL was not entitled to claim any set off as there was no ascertained debt owing by JOPL to SAIL - Whether the impugned award is liable to be set aside to extent that it awards 12% interest compounded with quarterly rests, on amount due to JOPL.
Finding of the court: Scope of interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of A&C Act is limited. As noticed above impugned award is an award arising out of an international commercial arbitration and therefore, it cannot be assailed on the ground of patent illegality as contained in Section 34(2A) of A&C Act - A when SAIL claimed it as a set off, it was unsubstantiated. More importantly, said claim did not arise from the same transaction. The Charter Party was for a specific vessel, “Ionic Kizuna”, for shipping Bulk Coking Coal and as rightly observed by the Arbitral Tribunal, it had no nexus with the Contract of Affreightment, which covered multiple shipments of limestone spanning a period of one year. Arbitral Tribunal indicates that SAIL did not contest JOPL’s claim for interest at the rate of 12% compounded with three monthly rests
Result: Petition is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
1. Steel Authority of India Limited (hereinafter ‘SAIL’) has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter the A&C Act) impugning an Arbitral Award dated 02.11.2020 (hereafter ‘the impugned award’) delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of three Arbitrators [Justice (Retd.) V.K. Gupta, former Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court, Sh. R.P. Singh, Director (HR and Legal), IIFCO and Justice (Retd.) Madan B. Lokur, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India as the Presiding Arbitrator].
2. The respondent (hereafter ‘JOPL’) is a company incorporated in Singapore and was the claimant before Arbitral Tribunal. SAIL is a Public Sector Enterprise, inter-alia, engaged in manufacture of steel. The arbitration between the parties was an international commercial arbitration within the meaning of Section 2(1)(f) of the A&C Act. It was conducted under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre and in accordance with its Rules.
3. JOPL is engaged in the business of maritime logistics including vessel operations and chartering. The parties (SAIL and JOPL) had executed a Charter Party on 21.02.2018 (hereafter ‘the Charter Party’) whereby JOPL agreed to load, carry and discharge cargo of 75,000 metric tons (5% more or less at the owners' option) of Bulk Coking Coal to ports in India. In terms of the Charter Party, 78,798.860 metric tons of Coking Coal was shipped on board the vessel MV “Ionic Kizuna” at the load port of Norfolk, Virginia on 21.02.2018.
4. The vessel arrived at the discharge port of Vishakhapatnam on 21.05.2018 and 45,564 metric tons of the cargo was discharged at the said port. Thereafter, the vessel proceeded to the port of Haldia and discharged the balance cargo of 33,234,86 metric tons at the said port.
5. In terms of the Charter Party, SAIL also paid 90% of the agreed consideration.
6. On 05.09.2018, JOPL issued an invoice for an amount of USD 528,634.64 being the balance freight plus demurrages incurred at the load port and the discharge ports, payable by SAIL, in terms of the Charter Party.
7. On 03.10.2018, SAIL responded to the said invoice enclosing its calculations of lay time. It agreed to the demurrages in the sum of USD 278,924.49 incurred at the load port and USD 6,205.68 at the discharge ports. It accepted that a balance of USD 515,739.88 was payable to JOPL. In view of the communications exchanged between the parties, on 13.12.2018, JOPL issued a revised invoice for a sum of USD 515,739.88 as agreed by SAIL.
8. There is no dispute between the parties as to the amount payable by SAIL under the Charter Party. There is also no dispute that JOPL had duly performed its obligations under the Charter Party. However, SAIL withheld the admitted balance amount payable to JOPL for the reason that it had raised a claim of damages against JOPL in respect of another contract Contract of Affreightment dated 28.06.2017 for shipping cargos of limestones (hereafter ‘the Contract of Affreightment’).
9. JOPL had not provided a vessel under the Contract of Affreightment for the 20th shipment and SAIL was compelled to make alternate arrangements for the same. SAIL claimed that JOPL had breached its obligations under the Contract of Affreightment and raised the claim for damages quantified at the additional expenses incurred by it to arrange for shipment of balance quantity of limestone. JOPL disputed the said claim. According to JOPL, it was not obliged to provide a vessel as the shipment period under the Contract of Affreightment had come to an end.
10. The disputes between the parties arising as a result of SAIL withholding the admitted amounts due under the Charter Party, were referred to arbitration. JOPL filed its Statement of Claims before the Arbitral Tribunal, inter-alia, claiming a sum of USD 515,739.88 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum compounded basis at three monthly rests from 30.09.2018 until the date of payment. J
Associate Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority
Jitendra Kumar Khan vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. (2013) 8 SCC 769
Lakshmichand and Balchand vs. State of A.P. (1987) 1 SCC 19
ONGC vs. Western Geco International Ltd. (2014) 9 SCC 263 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 12
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. vs. General Electric Co. 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644
Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited vs. National Highways Authority of India
Vendanta Limited vs. Shenzhen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Company Limited
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.