A petition to set aside an arbitral award must be filed within three months from the date of disposal of an application under Section 33, not from the receipt of the corrected award.

Prathiba M. Singh J.,

1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-M/s Tefcil Breweries Ltd. under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 challenging the judgment dated 8th January, 2025 (hereinafter, ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the ld. Single Judge of this Court in O.M.P. (COMM) 479/2018 titled ‘Tefcil Breweries Ltd. v. Alfa Laval (India) Limited’.

2. Vide the impugned judgment, the petition filed by the Appellant under Section 34 of the Act assailing the Arbitral Award dated 17th October, 2017 and additional award dated 18th May, 2018 has been dismissed by the ld. Single Judge of this Court on the ground of being barred by limitation.

Facts

3. The background of the present case is that the Appellant had approached the Respondent – M/s Alfa Laval India Pvt. Ltd. which is a leading supplier of brewery plants for setting up of a brewery plant as a green field project. An agreement dated 17th March, 2005 was entered into for supply, erection, and commissioning of a brewery plant at Nargala Industrial Area, Samlana- Jwali, District Kangara, Himachal Pradesh. The total consideration in terms of the Letter of Intent dated 1st November, 2004 was Rs.21.30 crores.

4. Certain disputes had arisen between the parties which resulted in reference of the same to arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator. The Claimant i.e., M/s Alfa Laval India Pvt. Ltd. had raised various claims qua dues for goods supplied, differential sales tax liability, costs of transportation, interest and other costs. The claims were adjudicated by the ld. Arbitrator who passed the award on 17th October, 2017. In terms of the Award, various claims and counter claims were allowed.

5. An application under Section 33 of the Act was filed on behalf of the Claimant i.e., Respondent herein seeking certain corrections as also praying for passing of an additional award under Section 33 (4) of the Act. The said application was duly replied to by the Appellant herein. A rejoinder was also filed by the Respondent and an additional award was passed on 18th May, 2018 in the following terms:

“3. As regards prayer (a), the confusion arose with regard to the claims as mentioned in the written arguments wherein the claims were given serial numbers whereas in the claim petition there was no serial number of claims and all the claims were mentioned without numbering and were in the form of paragraphs/pleadings. What is being sought through this prayer is that there is no finding on claim no.1 as referred to in the written arguments filed by the Claimant. The amount of the claim as given in the written arguments under the title claim no.1 is RS.71,97,513/- . This amount is being claimed in respect of the goods which had been supplied and which had not been prayed for, though these goods were admittedly taken back by the, Claimant with the permission to sell the same. The amount being claimed is towards the loss suffered by the Claimant as to the difference of the actual cost and cost at which the goods were sold including refurbishment charges.”

xxx xxx xxx

10. In the result I allow the claim no.1 to the extent of 75% of Rs.41,65,186/-, the refurbishment cost which comes to be Rs.31,23,889/-.

11. As regards prayer (b) Ld. Counsel for the Claimant contents that there is no specific finding on claim no.6 which was on account of non-furnishing of “C” Form of Sales Tax. However, against claim no.7 which was the claim on account of the interest on claim no.6 there is a finding that the