D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, SURYA KANT, SANJIV KHANNA
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Afcons Gunanusa JV – Respondent
JUDGMENT
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are:
| A Factual Background |
| A.1 Facts of Petition for Arbitration (Civil) No 5 of 2022 |
| A.2 Facts of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 13426 of 2021 |
| A.3 Facts of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 10358 of 2020 |
| A.4 Facts of Miscellaneous Application Nos. 1990-1991 of 2019 |
| B Submissions of Counsel |
| B.1 Submissions on behalf of the petitioners |
| B.2 Submissions on behalf of the respondents |
| B.3 Submissions on behalf of the amicus curiae |
| C Determination of arbitrators’ fee |
| C.1 Comparative outlook |
| C.1.1 Position of international organisations |
| (i) United National Commission on International Trade |
| (ii) Permanent Court of Arbitration |
| (iii) London Court of International Arbitration |
| (iv) International Centre for Dispute Resolution |
| (v) International Chamber of Commerce |
| (vi) Singapore International Arbitration Centre |
| (vii) Hong Kong International Arbitration |
Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1989) 4 SCC 378 [Para 45]
Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Prannath
Sanjeev Kumar Jain v. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust and Others (2012) 1 SCC 455 [Para 4]
Union of India v. Singh Builders Syndicate (2009) 4 SCC 523 [Para 4]
Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service
Indore Development Authority (LAPSE-5 J.) v. Manoharlal
Jag Mohan Chawla v. Dera Radha Swami Satsang
Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare
NHAI v. Gayatri Jhansi Roadways Ltd. 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10285 [Paras 75 & 77]
NHAI v. Gayatri Jhansi Roadways Ltd.
Nityanand Sharma v. State of Bihar
Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (II) v. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344 [Para 89]
Sanjeev Kumar Jain v. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust and Ors.
State of Goa v. Praveen Enterprises
Triveni Shankar Saxena v. State of UP & Ors.
Union of India v. Singh Builders
Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v. Delhi Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd.
Voltas Ltd. v. Rolta India Ltd.
Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
Assam State Weaving and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Vinny Engineering Enterprises (P) Ltd.
Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose
Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services
Section 2 (d) of the Act the Arbitral Tribunal is defined either as a sole arbitrator or a Panel of arbitrators and the language used in Sub Section (14) of Section 11 is for "determination of Fees o....
The principle of party autonomy is crucial in arbitration proceedings, and the Arbitral Tribunal cannot impose its will and wishes without reason or cause.
The arbitration fees can be separately fixed for claims and counter-claims as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is consistent with the statutory intent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of party autonomy in determining arbitral fees, as well as the interpretation and application of the 2020 Circular in the context of....
Arbitration fees under ICA Rules must be calculated separately for claims and counter-claims, as clarified by the court's interpretation of the rules, reaffirming the Arbitral Tribunal's authority.
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.