Ltd. Vs. Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd.
Jurisdiction Interlocutory Application No.3 of 2011 [
[Civil Appeal No.7562
O R D E R
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.
Application No.3 of 2011 has been filed by SSANGYONG Engineering & Construction
Company Limited in disposed of Civil Appeal No.7562 of 2011, seeking clarification
and correction of certain clerical errors in the judgment passed by this Court on
1st September, 2011, under Order XIII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
Dharmendra Rautray, learned Advocate-on-Record, who had earlier appeared for SSANGYONG
Engineering & Construction Company Limited, submitted that in paragraph 5 of
the aforesaid 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 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-B to the present application.
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 the arbitration
under the SIAC Rules would be the International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A,
2002 Ed, Statutes of the Republic of Singapore). Mr. Rautray submitted that it was
a clear case of inadvertence in paragraph 35 that needs to be clarified by indicating
that the Curial law is the International Arbitration law of Singapore and not
the SIAC rules.
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 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 portion of the sentence should read "where the seat of arbitration was
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 before the District and Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur, Madhya
Pradesh, whereas such an application had been made by the Respondent.
Rautray submitted that the aforesaid clarification and corrections are required
to be made in the final judgment.
on behalf of Yograj Infrastructure Limited it was urged that except for the clarification
sought for with regard to the Rules applicable to the arbitral proceedings, the
other clarifications could be made.
regard to the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are inclined
to agree with Mr. Rautray that the corrections and clarifications sought for have
to be allowed. In particular, the observations made in paragraphs 35 and 37, if
read together, indicate that, although, when the seat of arbitration was in
Singapore, the SIAC Rules would apply, the same included Rule 32 which provides
that it is the International Arbitration Act, 2002, which would be the law of the
arbitration. Accordingly, it is clarified that while mention had been made in paragraph
35 that the Curial law of the arbitration would be the SIAC Rules, what has been
subsequently indicated in paragraph 37 of the judgment is that International Arbitration
Act of Singapore would be the law of the arbitration.
judgment and order dated 1st September, 2011, be read and understood on the basis
of the corrections and clarifications hereby made in this order.
interlocutory application filed on behalf of SSANGYONG Engineering & Construction
Company Limited, is allowed and disposed of accordingly.