The limitation period for claims arising from a contract is determined from the date of breach, and the Arbitral Tribunal's interpretation of such claims is not subject to merits review in international arbitration.

JUDGMENT

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. M/s Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Limited (hereafter GACL), a company incorporated under the Company Act, 1956 has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the A&C Act) impugning a judgment dated 06.12.2023 (hereafter the impugned judgment) delivered by the learned Single Judge in O.M.P.(COMM) 269/2023 captioned Steel Authority of India Limited v. Beijing Sino Steel Industry and Trade Group Corporation, China and Ors., Respondent no.1 (hereafter SAIL) had preferred the said application [O.M.P.(COMM) 269/2023] under Section 34 of the A&C Act for setting aside an arbitral award dated 11.04.2023 (hereafter the impugned award) rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal (hereafter the Arbitral Tribunal) comprising of three members. The learned Single Judge allowed the said petition and has set aside the impugned award. Aggrieved by the same, GACL has filed the present appeal.

2. The arbitral proceedings were conducted under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (hereafter the ICC Rules). The parties had agreed to the place of arbitration as New Delhi. There is no dispute that the A&C Act is applicable in this case and the challenge to the impugned award was maintainable under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

3. The disputes between the parties arise out of an agreement dated 13.10.2007 entered into between SAIL and a consortium of contractors comprising of M/s Beijing Sino Steel Industry and Trade Group Corporation (hereafter respondent no.2 – SSIT in short), M/s Tangshan Iron and Steel Design & Research Institute Company Limited, China (respondent no.3 – TISD in short) and GACL. The said consortium of contractors is collectively referred to as the Consortium. The agreement in question was for executing the work of installation of a Top Pressure Recovery Turbine (TRT) (PKG-18) under 2.5 MT New Stream Expansion at SAIL’s IISCO Steel Plant, Burnpur, India. The said agreement is hereafter referred to as the Contract.

4. Whilst, SSIT and TISD are companies existing and organized under the laws of China, GACL is an Indian company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. SAIL is a Government company incorporated under Section 617A of the Companies Act, 1956.

5. The Contract was for execution of work on a divisible turnkey basis for an aggregate consideration (Contract Price) of USD 6,051,350.00 and ₹14,92,69,000/-.

6. The works under the Contract were to be completed within a period of twenty-four months from the effective date of the Contract, that is, within two years from 13.10.2007. Thus, the Contract was required to be completed on or before 12.10.2009. However, the term of the Contract was extended to 30.11.2012. Undisputedly, the execution of the works under the Contract was delayed. According to SAIL, the Contract was delayed on account of reasons attributable to the Consortium. SAIL claimed that the drawings were finalized as late as 25.08.2008 and there were unilateral changes in the design by SSIT and TISD.

7. SAIL terminated the Contract by a letter dated 29.11.2012, alleging breach of the Contract on the part of the Consortium. SAIL further informed the consortium members (SSIT, TISD and GACL) that the balance works would be completed at their risk and cost by engaging another contractor. Thereafter, on 07.10.2011, SAIL invited tenders for completion of the balance work (referred to as the Risk Purchase Contract).

8. SAIL raised a claim for damages. Additionally, it also claimed interest and costs. The parties were unable to resolve their disputes amicably. SAIL made a reques