$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 12.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 09.03.2026 + FAO(OS)(COMM) 4/2024 M/s JSW ISPAT STEEL LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS JSW STEEL LIMITED) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi and Mr. Ramesh Singh, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Sahil Narang, Mr. Dhritiman Roy, Mr. Ayushman Kacker, Mr. Krisna Gambhir and Mr. Shreya Sethi, Advs.

versus M/S GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Madhavi Divan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kapil Sankhla, Mr. Shubham Saigal, Mr. Vipul Grover, Mr. Saurabh Kumar Gangwar and Mr. Atharva Kotwala, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

JUDGMENT

% 09.03.2026 OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, “the Act’ hereinafter, read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, against the judgment dated 20.12.2023 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court in the O.M.P (Comm.) No.

249/2020, titled M/s Gas Authority of India Ltd. vs M/s JSW Ispat Steel Ltd., whereby the respondent’s petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act has been partly allowed, and the award passed in favour of the petitioner (Appellant herein), has been set aside.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The brief factual matrix necessary for the purposes of adjudication of the present appeal is delineated below.

2.1 The Appellant is a company engaged in the operation of a sponge iron and hot rolled coil plant located in Dolvi, District of Raigarh, Maharashtra.

2.2 The respondent is a state owned natural gas corporation specialising in the transmission of natural gas, petrochemicals, and city gas distribution.

2.3 In order to obtain continuous supply of natural gas, the appellant and the respondent entered into a contract dated 10.09.1991 (hereinafter referred to as the “Primary Agreement”). Under this contract, the respondent agreed to supply natural gas as per the requirement of the appellant, subject to a maximum quantity of 1.00 Million Metric Standard Cubic Metres per Day (MMSCMD).

2.4 The payment structure for the gas supplied under the Primary Agreement was: (i) Price of the gas supplied, including a transportation charge of INR 60.60 per thousand standard cubic meter, and (ii) a monthly service charge/transportation charge, calculated using a specified formula, designed to recover the operational costs and maintenance costs associated with the gas supply.

2.5 Subsequently, a supplementary agreement was entered between the parties on 30.03.1998 (hereinafter referred to as the “Supplementary Agreement”), which modified and substituted certain provisions of the Primary Agreement, particularly with respect to the charges for the gas supply.

2.6 In particular, clause 4.03 of the Primary Agreement was substituted by a new clause 4.03, which replaced the formula based monthly service charge with a fixed transportation charge of Rs. 38,67,600/- per month. The respondent contended that this fixed transportation charge was introduced to recover costs such as maintenance, operational expenses, and a minimum return on investment.

2.7 Additionally, clause 12 of the Primary Agreement was amended, specifying that the appellant had a period of 14 days from the receipt of the gas supply invoice (including the price, transportation charges, service charges and any additional charges) to raise any discrepancies or disputes with the invoice. Failure to raise such a dispute within this period was to be deemed a waiver of the right to raise claims or refer the matter to arbitration.

2.8 Thereafter, as the events unfolded, to accommodate the appellant’s increasing requirement for gas to operate its sponge iron plant, a tripartite agreement was also executed between the respondent, the appellant, and M/s Kalyani Mukund Limited on 21.12.1999. This agreement resulted in the allocation of an additional 0.75 MMSCMD of gas to the appellant, which was previously allocated to M/s Kalyani Mukund Limited. A