Supreme Court Allows Clarification in Arbitration Case Due to Inadvertent Errors. Clarifications made regarding the applicable law of arbitration, correcting previous misstatements about the SIAC Rules and the International Arbitration Act.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an interlocutory application filed by SSANGYONG Engineering & Construction Company Limited seeking clarification and correction of clerical errors in a judgment dated 1st September 2011. The appellant, Yograj Infrastructure Limited, was involved in arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent pointed out that the judgment incorrectly stated that an application for interim relief was made under Section 17 of the Act instead of Rule 24 of the SIAC Rules. Additionally, there were claims of inadvertent errors regarding the Curial law and the seat of arbitration. The court considered the submissions from both parties and agreed that the clarifications were necessary, particularly regarding the law governing the arbitration, which was clarified to be the International Arbitration Act of Singapore. The court allowed the interlocutory application and directed that the judgment be read with the corrections made.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Clarification of Curial Law - Correction of Inadvertent Errors - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 17 - The court clarified that the Curial law of arbitration is the International Arbitration Act of Singapore, not the SIAC Rules, as previously stated. The corrections were necessary to accurately reflect the applicable law governing the arbitration proceedings (Paras 8-9).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the clarifications and corrections sought in the judgment regarding the applicable rules and laws of arbitration should be allowed.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the interlocutory application filed by SSANGYONG Engineering & Construction Company Limited, clarifying that the Curial law of arbitration is the International Arbitration Act of Singapore and correcting the previous misstatements in the judgment. The judgment dated 1st September 2011 was to be read with these corrections.

Law Points

  • Clarification of judgment
  • Arbitration law
  • SIAC Rules
  • International Arbitration Act
  • Inadvertent errors
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (SC) (12) 8

Civil Appeal No.7562 of 2011

2011-12-15

Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph

Dharmendra Rautray

Yograj Infrastructure Ltd.

SSANGYONG Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Clarification of judgment in arbitration proceedings

Remedy Sought

SSANGYONG Engineering & Construction Company Limited sought corrections in the judgment

Filing Reason

To correct clerical errors and clarify the applicable law of arbitration

Previous Decisions

Judgment dated 1st September 2011 contained inaccuracies regarding the applicable rules and laws

Issues

Clarification of the applicable law of arbitration Correction of clerical errors in the judgment

Submissions/Arguments

SSANGYONG argued for corrections regarding the Curial law and application under SIAC Rules Yograj Infrastructure Limited agreed to some clarifications but contested others

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized the importance of accurately reflecting the applicable law governing arbitration proceedings and allowed necessary corrections to ensure clarity and correctness in judicial pronouncements.

Judgment Excerpts

the Curial law is the International Arbitration law of Singapore and not the SIAC rules the judgment and order dated 1st September, 2011, be read and understood on the basis of the corrections and clarifications hereby made

Procedural History

Interlocutory Application No.3 of 2011 was filed in disposed of Civil Appeal No.7562 of 2011 seeking clarification and correction of clerical errors.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9, Section 17
  • Supreme Court Rules, 1966: Order XIII Rule 3
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Brewery's Claim on Excise Duty Stage — Clarifies Duty Applicability on Beer Manufacturing Process.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Confirms Death Sentence for Multiple Murders in Punjab Incident. The court found the actions of the appellants to be heinous and shocking to the collective conscience, justifying the death penalty under Section 302 IPC.