Bombay High Court Partially Sets Aside Arbitral Award in ONGC Contract Dispute Over Pour Point Depressant Supply — Contractor's Claim for Price Revision Rejected, ONGC's Claim for Excess Dosage Compensation Upheld in Part. The court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the price variation clause was perverse and contrary to the express terms of the contract under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and reduced the interest rate from 18% to 12% per annum.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 161
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The judgment concerns two arbitration petitions filed under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, challenging an arbitral award dated 25th September, 2006. The dispute arose from a supply contract between Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) and Dai-Ichi Karkaria Limited (Contractor) for the supply of Pour Point Depressant (PPD). ONGC floated tenders in 1985, and the contractor was awarded a supply order in September 1986 for 3500 MT of PPD. The contractor completed supply in January 1987. Disputes arose regarding the quality of the product, excess dosage required in field use, and the contractor's claim for price revision. The matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator passed an award partly allowing claims of both parties. ONGC challenged the award on grounds that the arbitrator erred in allowing the contractor's claim for price revision and in awarding interest at 18% per annum. The contractor challenged the award on grounds that the arbitrator erred in allowing ONGC's claim for excess dosage compensation and in not awarding pendente lite interest. The court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the price variation clause was perverse and contrary to the express terms of the contract, as the contractor failed to provide any evidence of change in raw material costs. Therefore, the award on price revision was set aside. Regarding excess dosage compensation, the court found that the arbitrator's decision was based on evidence and was not perverse, and thus upheld it. On interest, the court reduced the rate from 18% to 12% per annum, holding that the rate was excessive. The court also held that the arbitrator had correctly awarded interest from the date of the award and not pendente lite, as the contract did not provide for such interest. The petitions were disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Arbitration - Judicial Review under Section 30 of Arbitration Act, 1940 - Error Apparent on Face of Award - The court can interfere with an arbitral award if there is an error apparent on the face of the award, but cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view. Held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the price variation clause was perverse and contrary to the express terms of the contract, warranting interference (Paras 1-10).

B) Contract Law - Price Variation Clause - Interpretation - The price variation clause in the supply order provided for revision based on changes in raw material costs, but the contractor's claim for revision was based on a different formula not supported by the contract. Held that the arbitrator erred in awarding price revision without any evidence of change in raw material costs, and the award on this issue was set aside (Paras 11-20).

C) Contract Law - Excess Dosage Compensation - The contract provided for compensation if the product required dosage beyond 300 ppm. The arbitrator awarded compensation based on actual dosage used. Held that the award on this issue was based on evidence and was not perverse, and thus upheld (Paras 21-30).

D) Interest - Pendente Lite Interest - The arbitrator awarded interest at 18% per annum from the date of the award until payment. Held that the rate of interest was excessive and reduced to 12% per annum, following the principle that interest should be compensatory and not punitive (Paras 31-35).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the arbitral award dated 25th September, 2006 is liable to be set aside under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 on grounds of error apparent on the face of the award and misconduct.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court partially allowed ONGC's petition and set aside the award on the issue of price revision. The court upheld the award on excess dosage compensation. The interest rate was reduced from 18% to 12% per annum. The contractor's petition was dismissed. Both petitions disposed of accordingly.

Law Points

  • Arbitration Act
  • 1940
  • Section 30
  • Scope of judicial review
  • Error apparent on face of award
  • Interpretation of contract terms
  • Price variation clause
  • Excess dosage compensation
  • Interest rate
  • Pendente lite interest
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (12) 35

Arbitration Petition No. 488 of 2006 with Interim Petition No. 4 of 2007 and Arbitration Petition No. 102 of 2007

2012-12-06

R.D. Dhanuka

Mr. Zuben Behram Kamdin along with Ms. Natasha Bopaiah and Ms. Parinaz Vakil i/by M/s. Bharucha and Partners for petitioners in Arbitration Petition No. 488 of 2006 and Arbitration Petition No. 4 of 2007 and respondents in Arbitration Petition No. 102 of 2007; Ms. Snehalata Paranjape alongwith Mr. J. Kapadia and Mr. F. Lakdawala i/by M/s. Little & Co. for petitioner in Arbitration Petition No. 102 of 2007 and respondent in Arbitration Petition No. 488 of 2006

Dai-Ichi Karkaria Limited (in Arbitration Petition No. 488 of 2006) and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (in Arbitration Petition No. 102 of 2007)

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (in Arbitration Petition No. 488 of 2006) and Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. (in Arbitration Petition No. 102 of 2007)

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

Nature of Litigation

Challenges to an arbitral award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940

Remedy Sought

Setting aside of the arbitral award dated 25th September, 2006

Filing Reason

Both parties alleged errors apparent on the face of the award and misconduct by the arbitrator

Previous Decisions

Arbitral award dated 25th September, 2006 passed by the arbitrator

Issues

Whether the arbitrator erred in allowing the contractor's claim for price revision without any evidence of change in raw material costs? Whether the arbitrator erred in allowing ONGC's claim for excess dosage compensation? Whether the rate of interest awarded at 18% per annum was excessive?

Submissions/Arguments

ONGC argued that the price variation clause required revision only if raw material costs changed, and the contractor failed to provide any evidence of such change. The arbitrator's award on this issue was perverse. Contractor argued that the price variation clause was ambiguous and the arbitrator's interpretation was reasonable. They also argued that the excess dosage compensation claim was not supported by evidence and that pendente lite interest should have been awarded.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, a court can set aside an award if there is an error apparent on the face of the award. The arbitrator's interpretation of the price variation clause was contrary to the express terms of the contract and perverse, as the contractor did not provide any evidence of change in raw material costs. However, the award on excess dosage compensation was based on evidence and not perverse. Interest rate of 18% was excessive and reduced to 12%.

Judgment Excerpts

Both parties have filed petitions under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and seek to challenge the impugned award dated 25th September, 2006. The court can interfere with an arbitral award if there is an error apparent on the face of the award, but cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view. The arbitrator's interpretation of the price variation clause was perverse and contrary to the express terms of the contract, warranting interference. The award on excess dosage compensation was based on evidence and was not perverse, and thus upheld. The rate of interest was excessive and reduced to 12% per annum.

Procedural History

The dispute arose from a supply contract between ONGC and the contractor. The matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator passed an award on 25th September, 2006. Both parties filed petitions under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 challenging the award. The court heard both petitions together and disposed them by this judgment.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration Act, 1940: Section 30
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Considers PILs Challenging Terms of Reference and Environmental Clearances for Mining Capacity Expansion. Petitioners alleged that expansion from 3 MTPA to 10 MTPA and from 10 MTPA to 60 MTPA violated Office Memorandums dated 11-04-...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench Adjudicates Letters Patent Appeal Against Regularisation of Temporary Peon Under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Industrial Court Had Direct...