Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. vs Hpcl Mittal Pipelines Ltd. on 26 April, 2017
Bench: Dipak Misra, Rohinton Fali Nariman
1
ITEM NO.301 + 302 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIV
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).25676/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20/07/2016
in Order No.8 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal)
KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
HPCL MITTAL PIPELINES LTD. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for directions and exemption from filing c/c of
the impugned judgment and permission to file additional documents
and permission to file lengthy list of dates and bringing on record
addl. documents and interim relief and office report)
WITH
SLP (C) D 13092/2017
(with office report)
Date : 26/04/2017 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
For Petitioner(s)
Mr.Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
Mr.K.V.Vishwanathan, Sr.Adv.
Mr.M.P.Bharucha, Adv.
Mr.Vivek A. Vashi, Adv.
Ms.Sneha Jaisingh, Adv.
Mr.Vipul Wadhwa, Adv.
Mr.Sunil Mittal, Adv.
Mr.Manu Sahni, Adv.
Mr.Adit Pujari, Adv.
Mr.Ravi, Adv.
Ms.Anu Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Marezban P. Bharucha, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Signature Not Verified Dr.A.M. Singhvi, Sr.Adv.
Digitally signed by
ASHOK RAJ SINGH
Date: 2017.05.04
Mr.Vikas Singh, Sr.Adv.
15:29:36 IST
Reason: Mr.Kartik Nayar, Adv.
Mr.Mohit Paul, Adv.
Ms.Moulshree Shukla, Adv.
Mr.Mehul Prasad, Adv.
Ms.Sonali Mehta, Adv.
2
Mr.Prakhar Deep, Adv.
Mr.Shivansh Pandya, Adv.
Mr.Rishab Kumar, Adv.
Mr.Siddharth Kalita, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
This Court on 19th January, 2017 had passed the following order:
“Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as advised at present, we are inclined to direct that the Tribunal that has passed the impugned order dated 20th July, 2016 shall deal with the application as contemplated under sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to counsel for both the parties and pass an order thereon. After the decision is rendered with regard to the said application by the said body of arbitrators liberty is granted to the learned counsel for the parties to mention so that the matter can be listed.” The second Arbitral Tribunal has passed the order on 19 th April, 2017. It is submitted by Mr.Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Arbitral Tribunal has not confined its deliberations to the spirit of the order dated 19th January, 2017 and, in fact, the petitioner's grievance is that it has travelled beyond it. Learned senior counsel would submit that the transgression by the second Arbitral Tribunal requires to be scrutinized by this Court.3
Resisting the said submissions, Dr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that there should be two Arbitral Tribunals for the claim and the counter claim. That apart, it is urged by him that if the ratio of SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr. [2005) 8 SCC 618] is appositely appreciated the petitioners are required to approach the High Court in this case after the final award is passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Thus, it is further submitted that in any case a special leave petition preferred under Article 136 of the Constitution is not entertainable before this Court.
In reply, Mr.Sibal, learned senior counsel would put forth that concept of two Arbitral Tribunals is not conceived of under the scheme of Arbitration Act, 1940 or Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or even under the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015. According to the learned senior counsel the party after filing the counter claim before the first Arbitral Tribunal and after visited with an order that his counter claim shall not be adjudicated because of non-deposit of fees would weigh against the respondents for invoking the jurisdiction of another Arbitral Tribunal. In essence, it is submitted by Mr.Sibal that the conduct of a party in an arbitration matter requires to be considered.
Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, it is necessary to decide with regard to the maintainability of the special leave 4 petition and the forum in which the parties can agitate their grievance pertaining to fairness in continuance of proceedings before two Arbitral Tribunals and particularly with regard to the conduct of the parties. Be that as it may, as advised at present, we direct that the proceedings pending before both the Arbitral Tribunals shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. Let the matter be listed on 3rd August, 2017 at 10.30 a.m. so that the matter can be heard and the controversy leading to such a situation shall be put to rest.
SLP (C) D 13092/2017 Issue notice fixing a returnable date within four weeks. As the respondent is represented by Mr.Mohit Paul, learned advocate on record, no further notice need be issued. The interim order passed in connected S.L.P.(C) No.25676/2016 shall also apply to the present case.
[ List on 3rd August, 2017 at 10.30 a.m. along with S.L.P.(C) No.25676/2016.
(Ashok Raj Singh) (Gulshan Kumar Arora)
Court Master Court Master