1. Appellate court held the arbitral tribunal's proportional reduction of fixed charges rewrote the contract and contradicted its own force majeure finding. Award failed to consider waiver under Article 12.03 and lacked adequate reasoning on limitation. (Para 57 , 58 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5318
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, Om Prakash Shukla, JJ
M/S JSW ISPAT STEEL LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS JSW STEEL LIMITED) – Appellant
Versus
M/S GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED – Respondent
FAO(OS) (COMM)-4/2024
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sandeep Sethi, Ramesh Singh, Sahil Narang, Dhritiman Roy, Ayushman Kacker, Krisna Gambhir, Shreya Sethi
For the Respondents: Madhavi Divan, Kapil Sankhla, Shubham Saigal, Vipul Grover, Saurabh Kumar Gangwar, Atharva Kotwala
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sandeep Sethi, Ramesh Singh, Sahil Narang, Dhritiman Roy, Ayushman Kacker, Krisna Gambhir, Shreya Sethi
For the Respondents: Madhavi Divan, Kapil Sankhla, Shubham Saigal, Vipul Grover, Saurabh Kumar Gangwar, Atharva Kotwala
Arbitral awards are patently illegal if they ignore vital contractual clauses or rewrite express terms using the "business efficacy" principle. Fixed charges cannot be converted to pro-rata charges if expressly agreed as fixed, and labeling invoices as "provisional" does not indefinitely suspend the limitation period.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 34 and 37 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 28 - Scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards - Patent illegality - Principle of business efficacy - Partial failure of consideration - Limitation period for provisional invoices - The appellate power under Section 37 is strictly confined within the limits of Section 34, focusing on whether the court correctly exercised its jurisdiction. An award is patently illegal if the tribunal ignores vital evidence or reaches a conclusion so irrational that no fair-minded person could have arrived at it. (Paras 10.3, 19)
(B) Contract Law - Principle of Business Efficacy - Implied Terms - A term can be implied only if it is necessary to give business efficacy to the contract and is so obvious that parties must have intended it (Officious Bystander Test). This principle cannot be invoked to rewrite an express term or convert an agreed fixed-charge structure into a variable or pro-rata charge based on actual performance. (Paras 51, 59, 62)
(C) Limitation Law - Provisional Invoices - Merely labeling invoices as “provisional” does not result in an indefinite extension of the limitation period, and cannot override statutory limitation requirements. (Paras 36, 43, 45)
Facts of the case:
Parties entered into a contract for the supply of natural gas. A subsequent agreement modified the payment structure, replacing variable monthly service charges with a fixed monthly transportation charge to cover infrastructure and maintenance costs. Due to government regulations and gas scarcity, a shortfall in supply occurred, which was interpreted as a force majeure event. The appellant sought a refund of transportation charges proportionate to the shortfall. The arbitral tribunal awarded a pro-rata refund based on the principles of business efficacy and partial failure of consideration, despite finding that the shortfall was a force majeure event.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the arbitral tribunal committed patent illegality by completely ignoring a vital contractual clause that mandated disputes be raised within 14 days of invoice receipt, failing which the right to claim or arbitrate was waived. Furthermore, the tribunal's finding that limitation did not run because invoices were provisional was legally unsustainable. The court also held that the tribunal's decision to reduce fixed charges pro-rata was an impermissible rewriting of the contract, as the parties had explicitly agreed to a fixed-charge structure.
Issues: Whether the failure of the arbitral tribunal to consider a vital contractual clause regarding waiver and limitation constituted patent illegality; whether labeling invoices as provisional indefinitely postpones limitation; and whether the principle of business efficacy allows the conversion of an expressly fixed charge into a pro-rata variable charge.
Ratio Decidendi: Ignoring a material contractual stipulation that goes to the root of jurisdiction and limitation constitutes patent illegality. The limitation period is not suspended indefinitely by the provisional nature of invoices. The principle of business efficacy is intended to give effect to the parties' expressed bargain and cannot be used to insert terms that contradict express contractual terms, such as converting a fixed facility charge into a variable one linked to supply volume. (Paras 35, 46, 64, 71)
Result: Appeal dismissed; arbitral award set aside; cross-objections allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
arbitration law
- arbitral award
-
contract law
- interpretation of contracts
-
consideration
- failure of consideration
- force majeure
- waiver
- limitation act
Table of Contents
2. A fixed charge contract cannot be rewritten using business efficacy to make charges variable. Failure to raise disputes within a contractual limitation period constitutes waiver. Arbitral awards must adequately address all critical contractual clauses and provide intelligible reasoning on limitation. (Para 32 , 34 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 66 , 68 )
3. Appeal dismissed. Cross-objections of respondent allowed. Arbitral award set aside for perversity and patent illegality. (Para 77 , 78 )
4. Can the principle of business efficacy be used to convert a fixed contract charge into a variable charge?
No. Business efficacy can only imply terms to make a contract workable, not rewrite agreed terms. If parties deliberately fixed a charge, a tribunal cannot make it variable based on its own view of commercial sense. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 )
5. Does a failure to dispute an invoice within a contractual timeframe constitute a waiver of the claim and bar arbitration?
Yes. A contractual clause providing that failure to dispute an invoice within a specified period constitutes an absolute waiver of the claim and the right to arbitrate is a binding condition precedent. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 34 )
6. Can labelling an invoice as 'provisional' indefinitely postpone the period of limitation for raising a dispute?
No. Merely labelling an invoice as provisional cannot override statutory limitation or contractual time limits for raising disputes. Claims must be raised within a reasonable time. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 )
7. What is the standard of reasoning required for an arbitral award to be valid?
An award must contain reasons that are proper, intelligible, and adequate. The tribunal must explain its findings and the evidential path to its conclusions. Unintelligible or conclusory reasoning renders an award liable to be set aside. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 )
8. Is an arbitral award internally inconsistent when it finds a supply shortage was due to force majeure but then orders a refund based on that shortage?
Yes. If a tribunal holds that a force majeure event excuses a party from liability and does not affect the obligation to pay fixed charges, it cannot later order a refund of those charges based on the same shortage. (Para 69 , 74 )
$~
* 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
