LexYOGRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. versus SSANG YONG ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 324 A YOGRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. V. SSANG YONG ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. I.A. No.3 of 2011 B IN Civil Appeal No.7562 of 2011 DECEMBER 15, 2011 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] c International Arbitration Act, 2002: International application - Clarificationlcorretion of clerical errors in the judgment - In para ~5 of the judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No. 7562 of 2011 on 1st September D 2011, it was indicated that the SIAC Rules would be the Curial law of the arbitration proceedings - Held: It is clarified that the Curial law is the International Arbitration law of Singapore and not the SIAC Rules. E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. No. 3 of 2011 F IN Civil Appeal No. 7562 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 31.8.2010 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Civil Reivision No. 34 of 2010. Sidharth Khattar. Faisal Zafar, Tarun Shanker, Gagan G Gupta for the Appellant. Dharmendra Rautray. Ankit Khushu, Tara Shahani, Meenakshi for the Respondent. The Order of the Court was delivered by H 324 YOGRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. v. SSANG YONG ENGINEERING AND CONST CO. LTD. ORDER 325 ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Interlocutory Application No.3 of 2011 has been filed by SSANGYONG Engineering & Construction Company Limited in disposed of, Civil Appeal A No. 7562 of 201,1, seeking clarification and correction of certain B clerical errors in the judgment passed by this Court on 1st September, 2011, under Order XIII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. 2. Mr. Dharmendra Rautray, learned Advocate-on-Record, who had earlier appeared for SSANGYONG Engineering & C Construction Company Limited, submitted that in paragraph 5 of the aforesaic,I judgment it had been mentioned that his clients had filed an application before the Sole Arbitrator on 5th June, 2010, for interim relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Mr. Rautray pointed out that the said D application had been made not under Section 17 of the above Act, but under Rule 24 of the SIAC Rules and the same would be evident from the application made before the sole Arbitrator in SIAC Arbitration No.37 of 2010, by the Respondent, being Annexure-8 to the present application. E 3. Mr. Rautray then submitted that through inadvertence, in paragraph 35 of the judgment, it has been indicated that there was no ambiguity that the SIAC Rules would be the Curial law of the arbitration proceedings and that the same had been subsequently clarified in paragraph 37, wherein while indicating that the arbitration proceedings would be governed by the SIAC Rules as the Curial law, which included Rule 32, which made it clear that where the seat of arbitration is Singapore, the law of F the arbitration under the SIAC Rules would be the International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A, 2002 Ed, Statutes of the Republic G of Singapore). Mr. Rautray submitted that it was a clear case of inadvertence in paragraph 35 that needs to be clarified by indicating ttiat the Curial law is the International Arbitration law of Singapore and not the SIAC rules. H 326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A 4. It was also pointed out that in paragraph 36 of the judgment in the sentence beginning with the words "In Bhatia International (supra) .. .", it had been indicated that while considering the applicability of Part I of the 1996 Act to arbitral proceedings where the seat of arbitration was in India, this B Court was of the view that Part I of the Act did not automatically exclude all foreign arbitral proceedings or awards. Mr. Rautray submitted that as would be evident from reading the judgment as a whole, this Court had intended to indicate that where. the seat of arbitration was "outside:· and not "in" India, the said c portion of the sentence should read "where the seat of arbitration was outside India". 5. It was lastly submitted by Mr. Rautray that in paragraph 4 of the judgment it had been mentioned that an application had been filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of the 1996 Act D before the District and Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur, Madhya Pradesh, whereas such an application had been made by the Respondent. 6. Mr. Rautray submitted that the aforesaid clarification and E corrections are required to be made in the final judgment. 7. However, on behalf of Yograj Infrastructure Limited it was urged that exc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.