LexUNION OF INDIA versus RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 85 UNION OF INDIA v. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ORS. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11396 of 2015) SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 [A. K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] A B Arbitration and Conci.'.'ation Act, 1996 - Part I, s. 14 - Seat of arbitration outside India -Applicability of Part I of the c Act - Product Sharing Contracts(PSC) - Execution of, for Tapta and Panna Mukta oil and gas fields between Union of India and the companies - Dispute between the parties - Invocation of arbitration clause and appointment of arbitrator -Arbitration agreement between the parties that arbitration D agreement would be governed by English law and the juridical seat of arbitration is London - Certain disputes under PSC - Initiation of arbitration proceedings in London by UOI- Final partial award by arbitral tribunal - Petition filed u/s. 34 by UOI for setting aside the arbitration award and the High Court E held the same to be maintainable- In appeal, Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court holding that Part I of the Act was not applicable and it was necessarily excluded being wholly inconsistent with the arbitration agreement - On basis thereof, High Court dismissed the F appeal pending uls. 14 as not maintainable - Review petition as also curative petition against the Supreme Court judgment also dismissed - In SLP, held: Arbitration agreements being prior to Bharat Aluminium Company's judgment, would be governed by Bhatia International wherein it was held that Part- G I would not apply if it is excluded by necessary implication, the juridical seat of arbitration is outside India or the law governing the arbitration agreement is a law other than Indian law- In the instant case, this Court had already determined H 85 86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R. A that the juridical seat of the arbitration is at London and the arbitration agreement is governed by English law, thus, it was not open to UOI to argue that Part-I would be applicable - Valiant attempt to reopen a question settled twice by dismissal of review petition and curative petition on the very same B ground, to meet with the same fate -As regards the plea that res judicata would not attach to questions relating to jurisdiction, would not apply as the effect of clause of the PSC raises a mixed question of fact and law and not a pure question of jurisdiction unrelated to facts - Thus, both on res C judicata as w,ell as the law laid down by Supreme Court, application uls. 14 to be dismissed - It is also an abuse of the process of the Court as only after moving under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and getting an adverse 0 judgment from the Permanent Court of Arbitration the application was filed u/s. 14 - Thus, the order of High Court is upheld. E F G H Reliance Industries Limited and another v. Union oflndia 2014 (6) SCR 456: (2014) 7 sec 603; Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. & Anr. 2002 (2) SCR 411: (2002) 4 SCC 105; National Thermal Power Corporation v. Singer Company 1992 (3) SCR 106 : (1992) 3 SCC 551; Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. & Anr. 2008 (1) SCR 501: (2008) 4 sec 190; Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services, Inc. (2012) 9 SCC; Videocon Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr. 2011 (8) seR 569: (2011) 6 sec 161; Dozco India Private Limited v. Doosan lnfracore Company Limited 2010 (12) SeR 259: (2011) 6 sec 179; Yograj Infrastructure Limited v. Ssang Yong Engineering and Construction Company Limited 2011 (14) SCR 301: (2011) 9 sec 735; UNION OF INDIA v. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED 87 Harmony Innovation Shipping Ltd. v. Gupta Coal A India Ltd. & Anr. 2015 SCR 697; Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy 1970 (3) SCR 830: (1970) 1 SCC 613 - referred to. Case Law Reference B 2014 (6) SCR 456 Referred to. Para 1 2002 (2) SCR 411 Referred to. Para 7 1992 (3) SCR 106 Referred to. Para 10 c 2008 (1) SCR 501 Referred to. Para 14 (2012) 9 sec Referred to. Para 15 2011 (8) SCR 569 Referred to. Para 17 D 2010 (12) SCR 259 Referred to. Para 17 2011 (14) SCR 301 Referred to. Para 17 2015 SCR 697 Referred to. Para 17 E 1970 (3) SCR 830 Referred to. Para 21 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition No. 11396 of2015. F From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2014 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in O.M.P. No. 671 of 2013. Ranje
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.