Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Bharat Vanijya Eastern Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of West Bengal on 30 September, 2024
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
SLP (C) No(s). 9474/2023 & connected matter
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. /2024
[@ SLP (C) No. 9474/2023]
BHARAT VANIJYA EASTERN PVT. LTD. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. /2024
[@ SLP (C) No. 9175/2023]
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This is a long-drawn litigation having commenced with the filing of a suit by the appellant for recovery alleging illegal termination of a contract. However, with the consent of both the parties, the dispute was referred to arbitration, and it culminated in the award dated 26.08.2011. The award was challenged by the respondent under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’). By order dated 04.01.2017, the award was set aside in part and in appeal under Section 37, the High Court set aside the Award completely on the ground that it is an unreasoned award. The relevant portion of the order of the High Court is as under:
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
“44. Clearly, the arbitral award in this case falls Indu Marwah Date: 2024.10.05 17:36:01 IST well short of what was required of it by the Reason: governing statute as and by way of reasons. The bases of the claims under the individual heads are 1 SLP (C) No(s). 9474/2023 & connected matter not alluded to in any discussion, whether as to the issues or as to the heads of claim. In a few cases the subjective satisfaction of the arbitrator is revealed in the use of the expression "fair estimate" without any objective grounds indicated for such subjective satisfaction. The reasons that the governing statute mandates to be furnished are the objective bases on which the subjective formation of opinion is founded: the subjective opinion matters little and counts for nothing if there is no objective basis thereto.
45...
46. As a consequence, the judgment and order impugned dated January 4, 2017 is set aside. The entirety of the arbitral award dated August 26, 2011 is set aside. The contractor is left free to pursue the claim afresh by reviving its suit, if that is possible, or by any other means that may be available to the contractor in accordance with law.
The contractor will pay and bear the expenses of the proceedings before the arbitrator and in the Court of the first instance and this appeal assessed at Rs. 5 lakh. Such costs, if not tendered within a month from date, will carry simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and will be adjusted first out of any amount that may be awarded in favour of the contractor if it seeks to pursue its claim and is successful therein. At any rate, the award or costs would be executable by the State after a month from today.
47. Accordingly, APO 398 of 2017 is allowed and APO 419 of 2017 is dismissed. In the light of this order, APO 349 of 2017 loses all meaning and stands disposed of along with GA 2806 of 2017, GA 2988 of 2017 and GA 2170 of 2017. Since the contractor has obtained payment of a substantial amount covered by the award, to the tune of Rs. 17 crore, inclusive of interest, the contractor should refund the entire amount received together with interest thereon at the simple rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of receipt of the payment till the date of refund, within four weeks from date, failing which the State will be entitled to recover the entire amount in accordance with law together with interest at the simple rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of payment till recovery.”
3. Special Leave Petition(s) (being SLP(C) Nos. 310-311 of 2020) 2 SLP (C) No(s). 9474/2023 & connected matter filed against the order passed by the High Court under Section 37 of the Act was dismissed on 17.01.2020.
4. It was under the above referred circumstances that the appellant filed an application under Section 11 of the Act before the High Court. By the order impugned before us, the High Court dismissed the application on 17.03.2023. It is against this order that the appellant has come before us by way of the present Special Leave Petition in which notice was issued on 15.05.2023.
5. We have heard Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned senior counsel in SLP(C) 9474/2023 and Ms. Mamta Tiwari in SLP(C) No. 9175/2023 for the appellants and Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent(s).
6. In view of the fact that the dispute commenced way back in 1995 leading to the institution of the suit in 2002 and till date there is no final determination of the lis between the parties, we consider it appropriate to get the dispute resolved through arbitration. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, in his usual fairness has left it to the Court, but submitted his client should have the liberty to raise all issues, including certain preliminary issues, before the Arbitrator.
7. Having heard the parties, we refer the dispute to the institutional arbitration under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre, New Delhi. The seat of the arbitral proceedings shall be in Kolkata. The Arbitrator shall in consultation with the parties determine the venue for conducting the arbitral proceedings as per the convenience of the parties. 3 SLP (C) No(s). 9474/2023 & connected matter
8. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, has further submitted that the appellants must comply with the earlier directions with respect to the deposit of the amount. This issue will also be taken up by the Arbitrator and appropriate interim orders may be passed under Section 17 of the Act pending disposal of the arbitral proceedings.
9. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the above directions.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
..……………………J. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA] ..……………………J. [SANDEEP MEHTA] New Delhi September 30, 2024.
4 SLP (C) No(s). 9474/2023 & connected matter ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.14 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9474/2023 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-03-2023 in GA No. 08/2020 passed by the High Court At Calcutta) BHARAT VANIJYA EASTERN PVT. LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 9175/2023 (XVI) Date : 30-09-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR Ms. Sangeet Mandal, Adv.
Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Adv.
Ms. Swati Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The Civil Appeals are disposed of in terms of the Signed Order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(KAPIL TANDON) (NIDHI WASON)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed Order is placed on the file)
5