Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Respondent No. 1, The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. (hereafter 'GESCO'), disputes the aforesaid contention. According to GESCO, IOCL had not acted with due diligence. IOCL had claimed an amount of ₹1,09,86,726/- as a counter claim in the arbitral proceedings instituted by GESCO in respect of another contract. GESCO had contested the same on the ground that the Arbitral Tribunal, constituted in that matter (hereafter referred to as the 'First Arbitral Tribunal'), did not have the jurisdiction to entertain IOCL's counter claim. However, despite GESCO pointing out that the First Arbitral Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to decide IOCL's counter claim, IOCL did not take the necessary steps for commencing arbitral proceedings or for the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate its claim. It continued to press its counter claim before the First Arbitral Tribunal, which IOCL knew, or ought to have known, did not have the jurisdiction to decide the same. Second, it is submitted that even if it is ignored that the First Arbitral Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain IOCL's claim, it could not have done so as the claim was barred by limitation as on the date when such counter claim was filed before the First Arbitral Tribunal.

6. IOCL was required to advise GESCO about the Laycans for the following month latest by the 20th day of each month. GESCO agreed to accept the Laycans without any deviation and was obliged to arrange for suitable tonnage and ensure that the cargo is lifted from the ports as per IOCL's schedule. GESCO agreed to nominate a suitable vessel for the same, at least fifteen days in advance of the commencement of first day of the Laycan or within three days of IOCL's intimation of the Laycan's, whichever is later. It was also agreed that in case the owner (GESCO) fails to nominate a suitable vessel and/or the nominated vessel misses the Laycan or the nominated vessel is not accepted by the suppliers/terminals, GESCO would substitute the vessel. It was agreed that if GESCO failed to substitute the vessel as agreed, IOCL would be entitled to in-chartering another vessel and the additional cost (freight and demurrage) would be recoverable from GESCO.

22. IOCL claims that it received the First Arbitral Award dated 23.03.2011, on 10.06.2011. Thereafter, IOCL issued an Arbitration Notice on 16.08.2011 for referring the disputes under COA-2006 to Arbitration.

23. The Arbitral Tribunal was constituted in terms of the Arbitration Clause under COA-2006. Before the Arbitral Tribunal, IOCL contended that the period from 07.04.2010, that is, on the date when GESCO commenced arbitration proceedings under COA-2007 till 10.06.2011 being the date on which IOCL received the First Arbitral Award, ought to be excluded as the said period has been spent in bona fide and diligent pursuit of its claim before the First Arbitral Tribunal.

24. The Arbitral Tribunal rejected IOCL's claim as barred by limitation. The Arbitral Tribunal noted that the Statement of Claims filed by IOCL did not contain any averment as to the time spent before a wrong forum. IOCL had also not made any plea seeking condonation of delay in its Statement of Claims. The Arbitral Tribunal also noted that IOCL had not furnished any explanation as to how it had proceeded before a Tribunal constituted under COA-2007 for a claim relating to the vessel M.T. Prem Prachi arising out of COA-2006.