IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Metro Machinery Traders & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. – Respondent
O.M.P. (COMM) 59 of 2020, 60 of 2020, 67 of 2020 & I.A. 5603 of 2020, 71 of 2020 & 75 of 2020
Decided On : 03-07-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge under arbitration law. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. focus on pure question of law. (Para 4 , 24) |
| 3. factual background of tenders and agreements. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 4. arguments presented by mmt's counsel. (Para 31 , 32 , 41 , 60) |
| 5. court upholds arbitral decision and award. (Para 90 , 100 , 103) |
JUDGMENT
1. These five petitions, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the 1996 Act") assail award dated 11 June 2010, passed by a learned Sole Arbitrator, arbitrating on the disputes between the STC of India Ltd (STC) on the one hand and the various petitioners in these petitions on the other. STC was the claimant before the learned Arbitrator, and the present petitioners were the respondents. The main respondent was Metro Machinery Traders (MMT), impleaded as Respondent 1 before the learned Arbitrator.
2. Before the learned Arbitrator, the petitioners jointly preferred counter-claims. The impugned Award rejects the counter-claims and awards, to STC, a sum of Rs. 109,74,06,709/-, jointly and severally against the petitioners with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the award to recovery.
3. The respondents before the learned Arbitrator have challenged the impugned award under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. STC has, on the other hand, preferred OMP (ENF.) (Comm) 172/2018. Inasmuch as the outcome of OMP (ENF.) (Comm) 172/2018 is dependent on the result of the present petitions, which challenge the impugned Award, arguments were heard, and orders reserved, in the present petitions, and OMP (ENF.) (Comm) 172/2018 was adjourned.
4. The present petitions, mercifully, involve no disputed questions of fact. The issue before the learned Arbitrator, which is also the primary issue for consideration before this Court, is a pure question of law, which has been neatly delineated by the learned Arbitrator in the impugned Award. Before, however, adverting to the question of law that arises for consideration, a brief recital of the factual matrix in which the question arose, is necessary.
Facts
5. Vide notice dated 27 January 2005, the Metal and Scrap Trading Corporation of India (MSTC) invited tenders from willing purchasers who desired to purchase, in auction, plant and machinery owned by Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC), to be sold on "as is where is" and "no complaint" basis, free from all encumbrances. MMT was the highest and successful bidder in the auction and, consequently, on 1 April 2005, MSTC issued a Letter of Acceptance (LOA) to MMT, confirming acceptance of MMT's offer. The sale price, as offered by MMT and accepted in the LOA, was Rs. 132 crores, apart from Sales Tax and surcharge on Sales Tax. MMT was required to make an Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs. 13.2 crores, on or before 30 April 2005. MMT deposited the EMD of Rs. 13.2 crores on 3 April 2005 with MSTC. On 13 April 2005, the market value of the plant and machinery of NLC, forming subject matter of the aforesaid option, was assessed by Neeraj Kapoor, a Government approved valuer, as Rs. 352.25 crores.
6. On 14 April 2005, MMT wrote to STC, seeking to enter into an agreement with STC for disposal/marketing of the ferrous and non- ferrous scrap which would result from dismantling of the plant of NLC. It was stated, in the said letter, that the plant and machinery of NLC would, on dismantling, yield approximately 87000 MT ferrous and nonferrous scrap, worth Rs. 352 crores. Of this, it was further stated that spares worth Rs. 35.6 crores were lying in sub-stores and loose material worth Rs. 21 crores were lying in different sheds. The total value of the plant and machinery, it was pointed out, was Rs. 149,41,10,270/-, of which MMT was required to pay Rs. 70,21,10,270/-, equal to 40% of the bid amount and 100% of taxes and duties on or before 30 April 2005 and the remaining 60% of Rs. 79.2 crores by way of Bank Guarantee (BG) in three equal monthly installments of 20% each. MMT expressed its desire to enter into an agreemen
Dharmaji Shankar Shinde v. Rajram Shripad Joshi
Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd v. State of Gujarat
Gopal Krishnaji Kelkar v. Mahomed Haji Latif
Mushir Mohd Khan v. Sajeda Bano
Nabha Investment Pvt Ltd v. Harmishan Dass Lukhmi Dass
Pandit Chunchun Jha v. Sheikh Ebadat Ali
Trojan & Co. v. Rm. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar
B.C.C.I. v. Kochi Cricket Pvt Ltd
M.R. Engineers & Contractors Pvt Ltd v. Som Dutt Builders
McDermott International Inc v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd
Pure Helium India (P) Ltd v. ONGC
South East Asia Marine Engineering & Constructions Ltd v. Oil India Ltd
An arbitration agreement must clearly express the parties' intention to submit disputes to arbitration, and an arbitrator cannot adjudicate disputes involving his own decisions to avoid bias.
The execution of a Conveyance Deed extinguishes the original Agreement for Sale and its arbitration clause, rendering them ineffective.
An arbitral award can only be set aside on specific grounds, including patent illegality and violation of public policy, and the arbitrator's findings must be supported by evidence and not be pervers....
The court ruled that waivers in commercial contracts must be respected unless coercion is proven, clarifying that economic pressure does not inherently constitute duress.
The court affirmed that limited judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act does not allow for re-evaluation of arbitration awards unless they are demonstrably perverse, illegal, or devoi....
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.