M/S. CENTROTRADE MINERALS AND METALS INC. versus HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD.

Citation: [2020] 9 S.C.R. 73 · Decided: 02-06-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
73
M/S. CENTROTRADE MINERALS AND METALS INC.
v.
HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD.
(Civil Appeal No.2562 of 2006)
JUNE 02, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s.48 – Enforceability
of the foreign award – Contract of sale of commodity between the
parties – The agreement contained two tier arbitration by which the
first tier was to be settled in India and if either party disagreed with
the result, that party had right to appeal to a second arbitration to
be held by the ICC in London – Dispute arose between the parties –
Appellant invoked the arbitration clause – Arbitrator held against
the appellant – Appellant invoked second part of arbitration
agreement – Foreign award held against the respondent –
Enforceability of foreign award challenged under s.48 – Respondent
objected to the enforceability of the award on the ground that it
was unable to present its case before ICC arbitrator – Held: ICC
arbitrator had given large number of opportunities to respondent
to file documents and legal submissions – Arbitrator was extremely
fair to respondent – Despite being informed time and again to appear
before the Tribunal and submit their response and evidence in
support thereof, it was only after the arbitrator indicated that he
was going to pass an award that the respondent’s attorney woke up
and started asking for time to present their response – This too was
granted by the arbitrator by not only granting extension of time but
by extending this time even further – Finally when the legal
submissions of 75 pages were sent even beyond the time that was
granted, the arbitrator took this into account and then passed his
award – This being the case, on facts there was no fault whatsoever
with the conduct of the arbitral proceedings – Foreign award shall
be enforced.
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 73
73
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
Allowing Centrotrade’s appeal and dismissing HCL’s
appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The arbitrator had given a large number of
opportunities to respondent to file documents and legal
submissions. On 03.05.2001, the arbitrator directed that the
appellant serve submissions along with supporting documents,
following the respondent’s response and evidence therein, with
a right in the appellant to put in a reply, in accordance with a clear
time table that was set out. On 30.07.2001, since no defence
submissions or supporting evidence was served by the respondent
within the time prescribed, the time was extended, giving the
respondent one last opportunity to put in their defence and to
seek extension of time for so doing. Until August 2001, the
respondent did not participate in the arbitral proceedings, even
though invited to do so. It was only on 09.08.2001, when the
arbitrator informed the parties that he is proceeding with the
award, that on 11.08.2001, the arbitrator received a fax from Fox
& Mandal, Attorneys for HCL, requesting for an extension of
one month’s time to put in their defence. This was acceded to by
the arbitrator on 16.08.2001, giving time upto 31.08.2001.
However, on 27.08.2001, Fox & Mandal sought for a further three
weeks’ extension of time, which was also granted by the arbitrator,
allowing a final extension of time until 12.09.2001.  Despite the
fact that the legal submissions running into 75 pages were
submitted beyond time, that was only on 13.9.2001, in view of
the 11.09.2001 attack in New York, the arbitrator received the
same and took the same into account despite being beyond time.
It was only on 29.09.2001 that the  arbitrator then passed his
award. The arbitrator was extremely fair to the respondent. Thus,
there was no fault whatsoever with the conduct of the arbitral
proceedings. [Para 34][106-H; 107-A-E, G]
Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc. v. Hindustan
Copper Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 245 : [2006] 2 Suppl. SCR
146; Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. v. Hindustan
Copper Ltd. (2017) 2 SCC 228 : [2016] 9 SCR 83;
Vijay Karia v. Prsymian Cavi E Sistemi SRL 2020 (3)
SCALE 494; Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. States
of Madras and Kerala [1960] 3 SCR 887; Ganges
Waterproof Works (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1999) 4
SCC 33; Sohan Lal Gupta v. Asha Devi Gupta (2003)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
75
7 SCC 492 : [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 249; Hari Om
Maheshwari v. Vinitkumar Parikh (2005) 1 SCC 379–
referred to.
Minmetals Germany GmbH v. Ferco Steel Ltd. (1999)
C.L.C. 647; JorfLasfar Energy Co. v. AMCI Export
Corp. 2008 WL 1228930; Mo

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