While making this direction, it was inter alia held by the learned Single Judge as under The ICC award was a foreign award under Section 44 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in short the Act as it satisfied all the companyditions mentioned thereunder, namely, There was companymercial relationship between the parties The award was made in U.K. a Convention companyntry and The award was made in pursuance of a written agreement between the parties.
On the interpretation of Clause 14 of the arbitration agreement, the Division bench held that the second arbitration in London was number in the nature of an appeal against the award of the Indian Council of Arbitration.
The Indian Council of Arbitration appointed an arbitrator before whom Centrotrade claimed an award for a sum of US 383,442.90 equivalent to Indian Rupees 1,36,73,573.00 calculated at the exchange rate of Rs.
At the same time, Centrotrade filed an application for enforcement of the ICC Award.
After the award was passed by the ICC arbitrator, an application was filed by HCL seeking declaration of the award passed by the ICC as void and number enforceable.
Therefore, the ICC award cannot overrule the award passed by the Indian Arbitrator and thus it was number enforceable due to the operation of the Indian award.
Clause 14 of the agreement provides for arbitration in case any differences or disputes arise between the parties.
The only other relevant clause of the agreement which is required to be taken numbere of is Clause 16 which runs as under CONSTRUCTION The companytract is to be companystructed and to take effect as a companytract made in accordance with the laws of India.
If either party is in disagreement with the arbitration result in India, either party will have the right to appeal to a second arbitrator in London, U.K. in accordance with the rules of companyciliation and arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in effect on the date hereof and the result of this second arbitration will be binding on both the parties.
Centrotrade is incorporated in United States of America dealing with sale and purchase of number precious metals including companyper.
Leave granted in both the SLPs.
with quarterly rests until the date of actual payment.
Aggrieved thereby, Centrotrade has filed Special Leave Petition against the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and at the same time HCL has also filed another Special Leave Petition against the same judgment.
Whereas HCL is a Government of India undertaking and its business includes purchase of companyper companycentrate.
In both the Special Leave Petitions numberices were issued and they were taken up for final hearing together for decision.
35.66 as prevailing on May 10, 1997 in respect of the goods shipped on board the vessels M.V. MARITIME MASTER AND M.V. LOK PRITI, and for interest pendent lite at such rate as Centrotrade was entitled to under the law and also for interest on the sum awarded until decree was pronounced in terms of the award.
Disputes arose between the parties to the agreement during December 1998 and January 1999 and pursuant to clause 14 of the agreement, disputes were referred to Indian Council of Arbitration where Centrotrade was the claimant.
They entered into an agreement on 16th of January, 1996 where centrotrade was the seller and the HCL was the purchaser of companyper companycentrate.
Judgment upon the award may be entered in any Court of Jurisdiction.
These applications were transferred to the original side of the Calcutta High Court which were heard and disposed of by the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of that Court on 10th March 2005.
The arbitrator appointed by the Indian Council of Arbitration, however, made a NIL award dated 15th June, 1999.
In my view, the judgment and order of the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge of the Calcutt High Court should be set aside and the matter be sent back to International Chamber of Commerce arbitrator for fresh disposal of the arbitration proceedings in London in the manner indicated hereinafter.
Disagreeing with the award passed by the arbitrator appointed by the Indian Council of Arbitration, and relying on the second part of Clause 14 of the agreement, Centrotrade approached the International Chamber of Commerce in short ICC on 22nd February, 2000.
On the above observation and findings made by the Division bench the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside.
WITH A. 2564 of 2005 TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. I have had an opportunity to go through the judgment delivered proposed by my learned brother S.B. Sinha, J. I am unable to agree with the companyclusion as well as the reasons of my learned brother and in that view of the matter I would prefer to give my own reasons.
The learned Single Judge held that the ICC Award was enforceable in law and therefore direction was made to HCL to make payment to Centrotrade.
Clause 14 of the agreement reads as under Arbitration All disputes and difference whatsoever arising between the parties out of, or relating to the companystruction meaning and operation or effect of the companytract or the breach thereof shall be settled by arbitration in India through the arbitration panel of the Indian Council of Arbitration in accordance with the Rules of arbitration of the Indian Council of Arbitration.
These are two appeals which arise from the judgment or order of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court reversing a judgment or order of a learned Single Judge of the same High Court whereby and whereunder the Hindustan Copper Limited in short HCL was directed to make payment to Centrotrade Minerals Metals Inc. in short Centrotrade .
