Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Admittedly, the provisions of Part II cover the assessment of the Subject Award for purposes of recognition and enforcement.

10. While the Affidavit in Reply to the Petition contains myriad objections to the recognition of the Subject Award, Mr. Kamdar formulated his objections within the framework of the contours of Section 48 of the Act in the following manner:

a) The Subject Award has granted unliquidated damages and also granted liquidated damages despite Trading and Agency not having suffered any real loss. Therefore, it falls foul of not only Qatari law, which requires damages to be proved to award liquidated damages, but also Indian law because the Subject Award grants both liquidated as well as unliquidated damages for the same breach of contract. Therefore, the Subject Award falls foul of Section 48(2)(b) of the Act being contrary to the public policy of India owing to contravention of the fundamental policy March 17, 2026 Chaitanya Judgment-CARBP-214-2024-F.doc of Indian law and being against most basic notions of morality and justice; and

13. Mr. Kamdar would submit that where liquidated damages are awarded, the assessment of unliquidated damages over and above the liquidated damages cannot be granted. Therefore, the Subject Award does not deserve recognition being completely contrary to the most basic principles of Indian law on damages. He would submit that the very foundation of liquidated damages provisions under Indian law is the parties' contractually agreed perceived inability or difficulty in arriving at a reasonable assessment of damages. Therefore, one cannot agree to liquidated damages indicating that it is not possible to quantify damages, award the same, and also proceed to grant unliquidated damages.

17. Therefore, it is submitted that the award of liquidated damages is totally irrational and contrary to the most basic notions of Indian Law and indeed even in conflict with the Qatari Civil Code. Towards this end, he would submit that even the invocation of the performance bank guarantee amount is invalid because even if liquidated damages were to be awarded over and above the unliquidated damages, the performance bank guarantee amount was far in excess of the liquidated damages amount and therefore the ruling that the invocation was legitimate further contributes to the Subject Award being contrary to fundamental policy of Indian Law.

26. However, I find that the unliquidated damages relate to the settlement that Trading and Agency has had to pay for to the Main Clients. The unliquidated damages are the bargain struck between the parties on how to treat a situation where a third party claim is to be indemnified and how liquidated damages would be payable. Ion Exchange did not discharge the burden of proof that Trading and March 17, 2026 Chaitanya Judgment-CARBP-214-2024-F.doc Agency suffered no damage at all - it did, as even in its settlement it had paid the settlement amount. The liquidated damages would cover all losses arising out of the default found against Ion Exchange. While Indian law principles can be sought to be imported on what was a Qatari-law governed contract, it would not be possible to simply apply Indian law as if the parties' conscious choice of law is to be ignored, just when it comes to enforcement of the Subject Award.