HARMONY INNOVATION SHIPPING LTD. versus GUPTA COAL INDIA LTD. &ANR.

Citation: [2015] 2 S.C.R. 697 · Decided: 10-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 697 
HARMONY INNOVATION SHIPPING LTD. 
v. 
GUPTA COAL INDIA LTD. &ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 610 of2015) 
MARCH 10, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND P"RAFULL~ C. PANT, JJ.] 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s.9 - International 
Commercial Arbitration - Arbitration agreement stated that 
in case of dispute, arbitration in London would apply; the 
contract would be governed by English law and arbitrators 
D would be members of London Arbitration Association - This 
showed that the juridical seat of arbitration would be London 
- In view of implied exclusion, the courts in India will not have 
jurisdiction. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is no cavil over the principle stated 
in Bhatia International that Part I of the Act is applicable 
to arbitrations held outside India unless the parties have 
F either expressly or impliedly excluded the provisions of 
the Act. The stipulations in the present arbitration clause 
prescribe that if any dispute or difference arise under 
the charter, arbitration in London will apply; that the 
arbitrators are to be commercial men who are members 
G of London Arbitration Association; the contract is to be 
construed and governed by English Law; and that the 
arbitration should be conducted, if the claim is for a 
lesser sum, in accordance with small claims procedure 
of the London Maritime Arbitration Association. There is 
H 
697 
HARMONY INNOVATION SHIPPING LTD. v. GUPTA 
698 
COAL INDIA LTD. 
no other provision in the agreement that any other law A 
would govern the arbitration clause. 
When the 
stipulations are read and appreciated in the contextual 
perspective, "the presumed intention" of the parties is 
clear as crystal that the juridical seat of arbitration would 
be London. The c;ommercial background, the context, B 
of the contract and the circumstances of the parties and 
in the background in which the contract was entered 
into, irresistibly lead in that direction. It is a proper clause 
or substantial clause and not a curial or a procedural C 
one by which the arbitration proceedings are to be 
conducted and hence, the seat of arbitration will be at 
London. [Paras 34, 41, 44, 46] [728-E; 736-B-C; 737-F; 
739-C] 
D 
2. The Division Bench of the High Court had allowed 
the petition on the foundation that the Bharat Aluminium 
Co. case would govern the field and, therefore, the court 
below had no jurisdiction. The said reason is not correct. 
But even applying the principles laid doll)ln in Bhatia E 
International and scanning the anatomy of the arbitration 
clause, the courts in India will not have jurisdiction as 
there is implied exclusion. Consequently, for different 
reasons, the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is 
upheld. [paras 48, 49] [739-E-F, G] 
F 
Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A (2002) 4 SCC 
105i 2002 (2) SCR 411 - relied on. 
Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical 
Services Inc. (2012) 9 SCC 552: 2012 (12) SCR 327 
- held inapplicable. 
Venture Global Engg. v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. 
(2008) 4 SCC 190: 2008 (1) SCR 501; lndtel Technical 
Services (P) Ltd. v. WS. Atkins Rail Ltd. (2008) 10 SCC 
• 
G 
H 
699 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
308: 2008 (12) SCR 673; NTPC v. Singer Co. {1992) 3 
SCC 551: 1992 (3) SCR 106; Citation lnfowares Ltd. v. 
Equinox Corp. (2009) 7 SCC 220: 2009 (6) SCR 737; 
Reliance Industries Limited and Another v. Union of 
India (2014) 7 SCC 603; Videocon Industries Ltd. v. 
Union oflndia (2011) 6 SCC 161: 2011 (8) SCR 569; 
Dozco India Private Ltd. v. Doosan lnfracore Company 
Ltd. (2011) 6SCC179: 2010 (12) SCR 259; Sumitomo 
Heavy Industries Ltd. v. ONGC Ltd. (1998) 1 SCC 
305: 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 186; Yograj Infrastructure 
Ltd. v. Ssang Yong Engg. and Construction Co. Ltd. 
(2011) 9 SCC 735: 2011 (14) SCR 301; Enercon (India) 
Ltd. v. Enercon GmbH (2014) 5 SCC 1: 2014 (2) 
SCR 855; A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. A.P. 
Agencies, Salem (1989) 2 SCC 163: 1989 (2) SCR 1; 
Rajasthan SEB v. Universal Petrol Chemicals Ltd. 
(2009) 3 SCC 107: 2009 (1) SCR 138; NTPC v. Singer 
Co. (1992) 3 sec 551: 1992 (3) SCR 106; Hardy Oil 
and Gas Ltd. v. Hindustan Oil Exploration Co. Ltd. (2006) 
1 Guj LR 658 - referred to. 
Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v. lmpregi/o 
SPA (2005) 3·wLR 129; Sulamerica Cia Nacional de 
Seguros SA v. Enesa Engelharia SA- Enesa (2013) 
1 WLR 102; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. v. Gulf 
Bank (1997) 1 L

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.