SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
M/S. INOX WIND LTD. – Appellant
Versus
M/S THERMOCABLES LTD. – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL No. 19 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.31049 of 2016)
Decided On : 05-01-2018
(2009) 7 SCC 696 – Relied upon
[2006] EWHC 2530 (Comm); [2010] EWHC 29 (Comm); [1991] 31 Con L.R. 60 – Referred
Facts of the case:
The purchase order between the parties contained a clause providing for a dispute to be resolved by a sole arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
While laying the cables supplied by the Respondent-company, the Appellant discovered that the outer sheaths of the cables of 150 sq. mm. were cracked. This forced them to stop the WTGs so as to avert damage to expensive equipment. According to the Appellant, the Respondent-company did not replace the cables. The Appellant, therefore, was constrained to issue a notice dated 30.10.2014 proposing the name of a sole arbitrator in terms of the Standard Terms and Conditions. In the absence of any response, the Appellant moved the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing an application under Section 11 (6) of the Act.
The High Court dismissed the said application by holding that an arbitrator cannot be appointed as the Appellant did not prove the existence of an arbitration agreement.
Finding of the Court:
Purchase order is a single contract and reference to standard form is sufficient for incorporation of arbitration clause.
Result: Appeal allowed.
According to the judgement, a single contract is characterized by the issuance of a purchase order or an agreement that explicitly states that the supply or performance is to be carried out according to the terms mentioned therein and in the attached standard terms and conditions. The purchase order is considered a single contract when it contains a clear and categorical mention that the supply or performance will be as per the specified terms and conditions, and the parties accept these terms (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the court clarified that even if the standard form attached to the purchase order is not from a recognized trade association or professional body, the mere knowledge and acceptance of those standard terms by the parties can suffice to treat the entire arrangement as a single contract. The key aspect is the comprehensive and explicit reference to the terms and conditions within the same contractual document, which collectively form one binding agreement (!) .
In essence, a single contract involves a unified agreement where all relevant terms, including those incorporated by reference or attachment, are intended to be part of the same contractual obligation, and the reference to standard terms within that agreement is sufficient for its validity and enforceability.
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the application filed by the Appellant under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
3. The Appellant is a manufacturer of wind turbine generators (WTGs). The Respondent is engaged in the business of manufacture of wind power cables and other types of cables. Two purchase orders dated 13.12.2012 and 02.02.2013 were issued by the Appellant to the Respondent for supply of cables for their WTGs. According to the Purchase Order, the supply was to be according to the terms mentioned in the order and the Standard Terms and Conditions that were attached thereto. Apart from the other conditions, the Standard Terms and Conditions contain a clause pertaining to dispute resolution. The said clause provides for a dispute to be resolved by a sole arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The material on record indicates that the Respondent accepted all the terms and conditions mentioned in the Purchase Order except the delivery period as is evident from a letter dated 15.12.2012.
4. The Respondent, pursuant to the Purchase Order, supplied wind power cables to the Appellant. While laying the cables supplied by the Respondent-company, the Appellant discovered that the outer sheaths of the cables of 150 sq. mm. were cracked. This forced them to stop the WTGs so as to avert damage to expensive equipment. According to the Appellant, the Respondent-company did not replace the cables. The Appellant, therefore, was constrained to issue a notice dated 30.10.2014 proposing the name of a sole arbitrator in terms of the Standard Terms and Conditions. In the absence of any response, the Appellant moved the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing an application under Section 11 (6) of the Act.
5. The High Court dismissed the said application by holding that an arbitrator cannot be appointed as the Appellant did not prove the existence of an arbitration agreement. The High Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in M.R. Engineers and Contractors Private Limited v. Som Datt Builders Limited, (2009) 7 SCC 696 to hold that there is no special reference to the arbitration clause in the standard terms and conditions, so the arbitration clause cannot be said to have been incorporated into the purchase order.
6. We have heard the counsel for the Appellant and Respondent. The judgment of this Court in M.R. Engineers’ case (supra) was relied upon by both the parties. Before proceeding further, it would be necessary to appreciate the ratio of the said judgment. A few facts necessary to understand the dispute in the said case are that the Appellant therein was a sub-contractor of the Respondent. The Appellant was entrusted a part of the work by the Respondent-contractor which pertained to ‘construction of project directorate building’. It was mentioned in the sub-contract that it shall be carried out as per the terms and conditions applicable to the main contract. A dispute arose between the parties which made the Appellant therein to approach the High Court for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court of Kerala rejected the application on the ground that the arbitration clause in the main contract was not incorporated by reference in the contract between the Appellant and Respondent therein. In the appeal before this Court, the Appellant submitted that his case was squarely covered by Section 7 (5) of the Act and that the arbitration clause from the main contract was incorporated by reference in the sub contract between him and the Respondent.
7. This Court considered the scope of Section 7 (5) of the Act and held that a conscious acceptance of the arbitration clause found in another document is necessary for the purpose of in
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.