IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
NTPC Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Tecpro Systems Ltd. - Respondent
Arb. A. (COMM.) 58 of 2021
Decided On : 29-10-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background on arbitration related to contracts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. claims and counterclaims of ntpc and tsl. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. legal arguments regarding arbitration proceedings. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. court's analysis on interim orders relevance. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. limits of arbitral power under section 17 of the a&c act. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. court's decision on the appeal and orders. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 7. final directions and reservation of rights. (Para 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT
[Hearing held through video conferencing]
Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)--The appellant (hereafter `NTPC') has filed the present appeal under Section 37 (2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter `the A&C Act'), inter alia, impugning the orders dated 14.09.2021 and 29.09.2021 passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal. Insofar as the order dated 14.09.2021 is concerned, NTPC assails the same to the limited extent that it directs maintenance of status quo with respect to the subject Projects.
2. The Arbitral Tribunal is in seisin of the dispute between the parties relating to Supply and Services Contracts dated 17.05.2011 for Coal Handling Plant Package for Pakri Barwadih Coal Mining Project (main CHP Contracts); and the Supply and Services Contracts dated 20.10.2011 for the Extended Coal Handling Plant Package for Pakri Barwadih Coal Mining Project Block (extended CHP Contracts).
3. The respondent (hereafter `TSL') claims that it is an established Engineering Procurement and Construction (EPC) Contractor and is engaged in providing turnkey solutions, inter alia, in respect of bulk material handling systems for cement, power and steels sectors.
4. NTPC is a public sector undertaking and was allocated the Pakri Barwadih Coal Block in Hazaribagh District of Jharkhand.
5. On 01.02.2010, NTPC issued invitation for bids for supply of installation of Coal Handling Plants Package Pakri Barwadih Coal Mining Block. The petitioner applied for the tender documents and on 20.02.2010 submitted its proposal for executing the works relating to the said Project. Thereafter, on 31.03.2011, NTPC issued the Notification of Award awarding the said contracts to TSL. Thereafter, NTPC issued another invitation for the extended supply and installation of the Coal Handling Plants package for Pakri Barwadih Coal Mining Block. TSL submitted its proposal pursuant to the said invitation. NTPC accepted the same and issued a Notification of Award dated 05.10.2011 for the extended supply and installation of CHP Package for Pakri Barwadih Coal Mining Block.
6. In the meantime, on 17.05.2011, NTPC and TSL entered into two separate Contracts for the Supply and Services respectively for setting up the facilities. Thereafter, on 20.10.2011, the parties entered into two further Contracts referred to as `extended First Contract' and `extended Second Contract'.
7. TSL claims that NTPC has failed and neglected to perform its obligations for due performance of the contracts in question including failure to timely hand over of encumbrance free work front; interfering extensively in execution of the project, which disrupted the works and inordinately delayed their completion; and, failure to make timely payments, amongst other breaches.
8. TSL claims that in view of the above, the execution of the contracts in question were delayed entirely for the reasons attributable to NTPC. TSL claims that since it was understood that NTPC was responsible for the delays, it also granted repeated extensions for completion of the contracts in question.
9. TSL claims that it is entitled to recover all costs incurred by it in carrying out the works for setting up the facilities and in addition, is entitled to be compensated for all loss and damages suffered as a consequence of breach on the part of NTPC in performing its obligations in a timely manner. TSL has also made a claim in respect of wrongful inv
The scope of interim relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is strictly limited to matters directly aiding the final relief sought in arbitration.
The court clarified the scope of Section 17 of the A&C Act, emphasizing that interim measures should be in aid of the final relief and related to the disputes pending before the Arbitral Tribunal.
Arbitral tribunals have discretion over fact-finding, and courts should not re-evaluate evidence unless decisions violate public policy or involve patent illegality.
Point of Law : In terms of Section 11(6A) of the A&C Act, the scope of examination under Section 11 of the A&C Act is limited to the existence of the arbitration agreement
Arbitral tribunals must not reject claims on non-arbitrability if disputes are sufficiently raised, and recovery rates must reflect reasonable estimates based on contractual terms and evidence.
The Arbitral Tribunal has considerable discretion in evaluating evidence and interpreting contract clauses, and its decision cannot be interfered with unless found to be patently illegal or in confli....
Arbitration - Application for setting aside of arbitral Award - Award of interest at rate of 18% per annum from date of award is not in consonance with observations made by Arbitral Tribunal, which r....
Arbitration rulings require justifiable reasons for contract termination, affirming that unilateral actions without attributed fault violate contractual obligations.
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.