IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Canara Bank - Appellant
Versus
State Trading Corporaton Of India Ltd. & Anr. - Respondents
FAO (OS) Comm. 17 of 2022 & C.M. Appls. 4701 of 2022 & 10471 of 2022
Decided On : 23-09-2022
Arbitration Act - Canara Bank - Dismissal of Application under Section 34(4) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (Section 37, Section 34(4)) - The court discussed the application under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration Act and the implications of the Arbitral Tribunal's award on Canara Bank's claim for interest. The court highlighted the limited scope of judicial review under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act and emphasized that the court cannot modify an award under Section 34.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between Canara Bank, Helm Dungemittel GMBH, and the State Trading Corporation of India (STC) regarding a contract for the supply of urea. Canara Bank issued a performance bank guarantee (PBG) in favor of STC, which was invoked by STC. Subsequently, Canara Bank sought to invoke the counter-guarantee issued by German Bank, but the German Bank declined payment. Legal proceedings ensued, and the Arbitral Tribunal's award was silent on the issue of interest to Canara Bank.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Arbitral Tribunal's award was silent on the issue of interest to Canara Bank, and it emphasized the limited scope of judicial review under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act. The court also highlighted that it cannot modify an award under Section 34.
Issues: The primary issue was the entitlement of Canara Bank to interest, and the court's jurisdiction to modify the arbitral award under Section 34.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the limited scope of judicial review under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing that the court cannot modify an award under Section 34.
Final Decision: The court held that the appeal against the Order dismissing the Application under Section 34(4) was not maintainable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. The court also refrained from modifying the award to award interest to Canara Bank, leaving it open for Canara Bank to pursue legal remedies in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - The present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Arbitration Act') has been preferred by Canara Bank against the Order and Judgment dated 21.12.2021 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in OMP (COMM) 376/2016 dismissing the application filed by Canara Bank under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Impugned Order'), and also setting aside the majority award of the Arbitral Tribunal dated 29.04.2016 to the extent that nil amount was awarded as interest to Canara Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'Impugned Judgment').
2. The facts of the case indicate that back in 2008, Helm Dungemittel GMBH ('Helm') entered into a contract to supply 3 lakh tonnes of urea @ 685.50 per metric tonne ('Contract') to the State Trading Corporation of India ('STC'). Clause 13 of the Contract called for Helm to furnish an irrevocable performance bank guarantee in favour of STC, for 3% of the total contract value, through any first-class international bank having its branch office in New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'PBG'). Since Helm's banker (hereinafter referred to as the 'German Bank') did not have any branch office in New Delhi, Canara Bank issued a PBG of USD 67,86,450/- in favour of STC. This PBG was duly secured by a back-to-back counter-guarantee issued by German Bank in favour of Canara Bank for an identical amount (hereinafter referred to as 'counter-guarantee').
3. However, certain disputes arose between Helm and STC regarding the price of the goods to be supplied. Helm insisted on the contract price, whereas STC sought for reduction. Helm contended that as the contract stood discharged by performance, the PBG also stood discharged.
4. On 10.02.2009, STC invoked the PBG issued by Canara Bank. On the same date, Canara Bank also sought to invoke the counter-guarantee. However, the German Bank declined payment, contending that the demand was not in terms of its guarantee. The very next day, Canara Bank released the PBG, although German Bank did not release monies under the counter-guarantee.
5. On 12.02.2009, Helm filed a suit being CS(OS) 313/2009 titled 'Helm Dungemittel Gmbh v. The State Trading Corporation & Ors.' before a bench of this Court impleading STC, Canara Bank, and German Bank seeking a permanent injunction against Canara Bank restraining it from invoking the counter-guarantee. An application seeking ad-interim injunction was also filed in the suit.
6. On 13.02.2009, vide an Order passed in CS(OS) 313/2009, an ad-interim ex-parte injunction was granted in favour of Helm, thereby restraining Canara Bank and German Bank from releasing the performance guarantee pursuant to its invocation by STC and also restraining STC from encashing the performance guarantee.
7. Thereafter, Canara Bank filed an IA in CS(OS) 313/2009 seeking vacation of stay granted vide Order dated 13.02.2009. This IA was decided in favour of Canara Bank in the following terms:
'32. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the considered opinion that there is absolutely no fraud and no merit in the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2, CPC filed by the plaintiff which will warrant staying of the invocation of the counter guarantee by defendant no. 2 namely the Canara Bank against defendant no. 3 which was granted in favour of the plaintiff on 13.02.2009 much less the continuance of the same.
33. I, accordingly vacate the stay order and permit defendant no.2 to realize the amount of counter guarantee from German Bank. The IA No. 2206/2009 is dismissed. So far as the IA No. 6701/2009 wherein the plaintiff had prayed for a direction to the STC to produce certain records has also become infructuous on account of the fact that an affidavit of Mr. S.K. Jain, a senior employee of the STC has been filed indicating that the amount of performance guarantee was credited to the international account of the STC on 10.02.2009 itself.'
8. Helm assailed t
I-Pay Clearing Services (P) Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd.
J. Ashoka v. University of Agricultural Sciences
Kinnari Mullick v. Ghanshyam Das Damani
Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. Harischandra Reddy
Mc Dermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd (2006) 11 SCC 181
NHAI v. M. Hakeem (2021) 9 SCC 1
Tata Hydro-Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. v. Union of India.(2003) 4 SCC 172
The court emphasized the importance of the arbitral tribunal providing reasons for its decisions, especially regarding unadjudicated claims for interest arising from wrongful invocation of guarantees....
Remission under Section 34(4) is limited to correcting curable defects and cannot be used for a review of the award.
Challenge to Arbitral Award – Under guise of additional reasons and filling up gaps in reasoning, no award can be remitted to Arbitrator, where there are no findings on contentious issues in award – ....
Interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act require establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss; court granted interim protection by ret....
The courts have a limited scope of interference under Section 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act, and the Arbitral Tribunal's detailed consideration of evidence and claims is final.
The court's decision emphasized the principles guiding the grant of interim measures under Section 9 of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996, and the importance of establishing a prima facie ca....
The appeal was allowed, reinstating the arbitrator's award which concluded that the termination of the contract was illegal due to failure in fulfilling mutual obligations concerning site availabilit....
The judgment emphasizes the narrow scope of interference with an arbitral award and the principle of waiver in raising new grounds on appeal.
A Section 34 court cannot modify an arbitral award, as established by the Supreme Court in Hakeem, which overruled previous case law allowing such modifications.
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.