Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Last submission of learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India is that in any case, the Commercial Court could not quantify, even if every submission of the appellant- Ms. Univabs Ltd. is accepted, as it could only set aside the Award. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on Mcdermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 181.

Submissions in Arbitration Appeal No.46 of 2017

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant i.e. Union of India assailed legality and validity of the order passed by the Commercial Court principally on the submission that in so far as finding of claims No.1, 3, 8 (a)

Their Lordships, in para 20 of the judgment (Associate Builders), noted that:

"20. The judgment in ONGC v. Saw Pipes has been consistently followed till date. "

Subsequent decisions in the cases of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Friends Coal Carbonisation (2006) 4 SCC 445, Mcdermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 181, Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc. Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 245, DDA Vs. R.S. Sharma and Co. (2008)13 SCC 80, J.G. Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2011) 5 SCC 758, Union of India Vs. Col. LSN Murthy (2012) 1 SCC 718 rendered up to 2012 were also referred to and relied upon as below :

22. In McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., this Court held:

"58. In Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., this Court laid down that the arbitral award can be set aside if it is contrary to (a) fundamental policy of Indian law; (b) the interests of India; or (c) justice or morality. A narrower meaning to the expression "public policy" was given therein by confining judicial review of the arbitral award only on the aforementioned three grounds. An apparent shift can, however, be noticed from the decision of this Court in ONGC Ltd.v. Saw Pipes Ltd. [(2003) 5 SCC 705] (for short "ONGC"). This Court therein referred to an earlier decision of this Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v.

43. In McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181, this Court held as under:

"112. It is trite that the terms of the contract can be express or implied. The conduct of the parties would also be a relevant factor in the matter of construction of a contract. The construction of the contract agreement is within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators having regard to the wide nature, scope and ambit of the arbitration agreement and they cannot be said to have misdirected themselves in passing the award by taking into consideration the conduct of the parties. It is also trite that correspondences exchanged by the parties are required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of construction of a contract. Interpretation of a contract is a matter for the arbitrator to determine, even if it gives rise to determination of a question of law. (See Pure Helium India (P) Ltd. v. ONGC [(2003) 8 SCC 593] and D.D. Sharma v. Union of India [(2004) 5 SCC 325]).