The Delhi High Court has declined to intervene with an arbitral award, that had ordered GAIL to pay over USD 7 million to Jindal Saw Ltd.
In the judgement delivered on October 29, 2024, the arbitral tribunal affirmed arbitral tribunal's 2002 order that had held GAIL responsible for delays in taking delivery of pipes, thus not entitled to reduce the price payable to SPL. In the matter at hand, GAIL filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging a judgment dated November 26, 2010, which upheld an arbitral award dated December 7, 2002, amended on March 21, 2003.
The court found merit in arbitral tribunal's interpretation of the contract and its findings and dismissed the appeal.
We find that the Arbitral Tribunal’s understanding of the Contract is neither contrary to the express terms of the Contract nor can be termed as perverse or 4 MSK Projects India (JV) Ltd. v. State of Rajashtan (2011) unreasonable. On the contrary, the Arbitral Tribunal has interpreted the Contract in a reasonable manner, the court said.
The Arbitral Tribunal’s decision that GAIL had consented to reschedule the delivery without insisting on reduction of price cannot be stated to be an implausible or an unreasonable view. It is not disputed that after the issuance of the PO, GAIL was kept fully abreast of the state of preparation of SPL, the steps taken by it in this regard, as well as the proposed timelines for delivery of pipes, the court further added.
The S&A Law Offices team, led by Mr. Vijay K Singh (Senior Partner) along with Ms. Shruti Manchanda (Principal Associate), represented Jindal Saw Limited in the Delhi High court.
_20241221234433_original_image_47.webp)
_20241221150827_original_image_16.webp)
_20241221094648_original_image_37.webp)
_20241220161511_original_image_40.webp)
