2025:BHC-OS:26730 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 232 OF 2024 Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company ..PETITIONER Limited : VERSUS :

Remi Sales and Engineering Limited .RESPONDENT Ms. Arti Raghavan i/b Bachubhai Munim & Co., for Petitioner.

Mr. Rashmin Khandekar with Mr. Pranav Nair, Ms. Akanksha Patil, Mr. Harshil Parekh, Mr. Praharshi Saxena & Mr. Rahul Agrawal i/b Purnanand & Co., for Respondent CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Digitally signed by NEETA Judg. Resd On : 18 DECEMBER 2025.

NEETA SHAILESH SHAILESH SAWANT SAWANT Date:

2025.12.24

20:12:30 Judg.Pron. On: 24 December 2025.

+0530 JUDGMENT :

1) Petitioner has filed the present Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) challenging the Award of the learned sole Arbitrator dated 8 February 2023. By the impugned Award, the learned sole Arbitrator has awarded sum of Rs. 4,25,44,680/- alongwith interest @10% p.a. in favour of the Respondent. The Petitioner has been directed to indemnify the Respondent to the extent of applicable import duties and other levies and penalties on the import of raw material for manufacturing of goods covered by the purchase order.

2) The Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 engaged in the business inter alia of manufacturing of engineering and capital goods. The Respondent is engaged in the business of trading and marketing of various goods. On 24 August 2016, Petitioner issued purchase order to the Respondent for supply of 8339 numbers of Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes (tubes). The purchase order was revised on 7 December 2016 and the final value of the purchase order was Rs. 5,01,20,732.16. The tubes were to be in ‘U’ shape having length of 12 /14 meters. The total length of tubes was approximately 129 kms. The tubes were to be as per the standard ASTM (American Society Testing Material)-A213 TP 316/316L and were to be manufactured using pierced mother hollowS. The tubes were to be used in heat exchangers for an oil and gas refinery located in Oman and were supposed to withstand the regular passage of petrochemical products and steam at extremely high temperatures and pressures. As per the terms of the purchase orders, the Respondent named TUV-SUD South Asia Pvt. Ltd. as third party inspection agency (TPIA) for carrying out inspection of raw material as well as manufacturing and finishing of the tubes. The Respondent proposed Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) to the TPIA.

3) The Respondent supplied and delivered the tubes to the Petitioner in 14 consignments from 18 February 2017 to 30 March 2017. The Petitioner accepted the delivery and inserted the tubes in the Heat Exchangers. The Petitioner addressed email to the Respondent on 13 April 2017 recording that pitting and rusting was observed in few tubes. On 14 April 2017, minutes of meetings jointly signed by representatives of the Petitioner and the Respondent recorded that pitting and rusting was observed on the inner dimension of few tubes, which was shown to the Respondent through videoscope. Thereafter further meetings took place between the parties in the month of April-2017 when the issue relating to rusting and pitting observed in respect of tubes was highlighted. Parties had different versions of outcome of the said meetings. Parties also exchanged correspondence relating to the issues observed in the tubes after their insertion in the Heat Exchangers. It appears that the Respondent suggested the solution of cleaning the tubes and 965 tubes were sent for cleaning and 157 tubes were sent for changing the radius of U bend during May 2017 to July 2017. According to the Petitioner even after cleaning, on 17 August 2017 Petitioner reported discoloration in 965 tubes cleaned by the Respondent. The Petitioner decided to reject and replace all the tubes and requested the Respondent for a plan for replacement. The Respondent demanded inspectio