SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 803

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, J.
OPG Power Generation Private Limited – Appellants
Versus
Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Private Limited & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3981-3982 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.21017-21018 of 2021) With CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3983-3984 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.21009-21010 of 2021)
Decided On : 20-09-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Aman Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gaurab Banerjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mayank Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR Ms. Ayshwarya Chandar, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Chandar, Adv. Ms. Anukriti Kudesia, Adv.

The acknowledgment of liability extends the limitation period for claims, while counterclaims not acknowledged are barred by limitation.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 37 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 13(1) - Challenge to arbitral award - High Court restored arbitral award after setting aside Single Judge's order - The arbitral tribunal found that the holding company was jointly liable with the appellant for the dues owed to the claimant - The claimant's claim was within limitation due to acknowledgment of liability - Counterclaims for repair costs were barred by limitation as they were not acknowledged - The court upheld the tribunal's findings on liability and limitation. (Paras 1, 23, 150)

Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from a dispute regarding outstanding payments under purchase orders for the supply and erection of an air-cooled condenser unit for a thermal power plant. The claimant asserted that significant amounts remained unpaid, while the appellant contended that deductions were justified due to delays and defects. (Paras 1, 6, 10)

Findings of Court:
The arbitral tribunal found the holding company jointly liable and ruled that the claimant's claims were within the limitation period due to an acknowledgment made in a meeting. Counterclaims for repair costs were deemed time-barred. (Paras 150, 151)

Issues: Whether the arbitral award was in conflict with public policy and whether the claims were barred by limitation. (Paras 27, 150)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acknowledgment of liability extended the limitation period for the claimant's claims, while the counterclaims were not acknowledged and thus barred by limitation. The findings of the arbitral tribunal were upheld as they were based on a possible view of the matter. (Paras 150, 151)

Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. These two appeals are directed against a common judgment and order of the High Court1[High Court of Judicature at Madras] dated 1 September 2021 passed in OSA (CAD) Nos. 174-175 of 2021, whereby, exercising powers under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19962 [1996 Act] read with Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 20153 [2015 Act] and Clause 15 of Amended Letters Patent, 1865 read with Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment and order of the Single Judge dated 23 December 2020 and restored the arbitral award dated 13 July 2020.

THE CONTRACT

2. OPG Power Generation Private Ltd (in short OPG - the appellant in the leading appeal), a subsidiary of Gita Power and Infrastructure Private Limited (in short Gita Power – Respondent No.2 (R-2) in the leading appeal, and appellant in the connected appeal), floated a composite tender for design, manufacture, supply, erection and commissioning of air-cooled condenser unit (ACC Unit) with auxiliaries for 160 MW Coal Based Thermal Power Plant (Project) at Gummidipoondi in the State of Tamil Nadu. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions (in short Enexio - Respondent No.1 (R-1) in the leading appeal) bid for the project. After a series of correspondences /negotiations, on 4 March 2013, R-2 issued two separate orders: (i) for design, engineering and supply of one ACC Unit with auxiliaries for 160 MW Coal Based Power Project at Gummidipoondi (in short, Supply Purchase Order); and (ii) for erection and commissioning of one unit of ACC with auxiliaries for 160 MW Coal Based Power Project at Gummidipoondi (in short, Erection Purchase Order). Interestingly, the tender was floated by OPG but the supply and erection orders were issued by its holding company (Gita Power - R-2) on 4 March 2013. However, later, in the month of July 2013, OPG confirmed those orders by issuing two separate orders with same terms and bearing the same date i.e. 4 March 2013.

3. The supply / erection purchase orders with its enclosures contained an arbitration clause in the following terms:

    “Clause 21. ARBITRATION

    21.1. In the event of any dispute or difference arising under the Order or in connection therewith including any question relating to existence, meaning and interpretation of the Order or any alleged breach thereof that cannot be amicably settled between the Parties, the same shall be referred to the arbitration.

    21.2. Arbitration shall be conducted under the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by three arbitrators appointed in accordance with said rules. The place of arbitration will be at Chennai. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in the English language.

    21.3. The arbitrators shall take into consideration the will of the Parties as expressed in the Order, the evidence presented, the principles of equity and good faith. The decision(s) of the arbitrators shall be final and both Parties undertake to fulfil and execute the said decision(s).

    21.4. Notwithstanding any dispute between the parties, Parties shall not be entitled to withhold/ delay/defer their obligations under the Order and same shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Order.”

4. Clause 6 of the supply purchase order provided:

    “6-Tax and duties:

    6.1. Taxes, duties and levies payable and charged by the competent authority such as Excise Duty, Sales Tax, Cess will be borne and paid by the Purchaser.

    6.2. The Purchaser shall issue Central Sales Tax Form C or any other Form as applicable for interstate sale.”

5. Likewise, clause 6 of the erection purchase order provided:

    “6-Tax and duties:

    6.1. All taxes duties and local levies payable and charged by the Competent Authority for the Services, such as Service Tax, cess, work order tax and other charges which could be levied in connection with and during the Order, whether deducted at source or not, will

                      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                      1
                      2
                      3
                      4
                      5
                      6
                      7
                      8
                      9
                      10
                      11
                      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                      supreme today icon
                      logo-black

                      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                      Please visit our Training & Support
                      Center or Contact Us for assistance

                      qr

                      Scan Me!

                      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                      whatsapp-icon Back to top