The case of OPG Power Generation Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. revolves around a commercial dispute concerning the construction of a power plant. It primarily deals with the interpretation of purchase orders, delayed project completion, monetary claims, counterclaims, and the arbitration process under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court's judgment focuses on the issues of limitation, liability of the parent company (Gita Power), and the enforceability of an arbitral award. The key findings uphold the arbitral tribunal's decision, emphasizing the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act regarding acknowledgment of dues and the joint liability of both OPG and Gita Power.

1. Parties Involved:

• Appellant: OPG Power Generation Pvt. Ltd. (subsidiary of Gita Power)
• Respondents: Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. and Gita Power (parent company of OPG)

2. Background of the Dispute:

• A tender was floated by OPG for the design, manufacture, and commissioning of an air-cooled condenser unit (ACC Unit) for a 160 MW coal-based thermal power plant in Tamil Nadu.
• Separate orders were issued by Gita Power for supply and erection of the ACC unit.
• Disputes arose regarding payment delays, liquidated damages, and deductions related to customs duty.

3. Contract Terms:

• Arbitration Clause: Disputes to be resolved under the ICC Rules, with the arbitration conducted in Chennai.
• Tax Clause: OPG was responsible for taxes such as customs duties.

4. Dispute:

• Enexio claimed an unpaid amount of Rs. 6.75 crore.
• OPG disputed the amount, citing deductions for customs duties and liquidated damages for delayed completion.

5. Arbitration:

• Enexio invoked arbitration in 2019, and an arbitral tribunal awarded Enexio Rs. 6.11 crore, rejecting most counterclaims by OPG.
• OPG challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, arguing that the claim was barred by limitation and the tribunal used different standards for the counterclaims.

6. Legal Findings:

• The tribunal held that OPG and Gita Power were jointly liable due to their economic relationship.
• The court found that negotiations in 2018 extended the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, making the claim valid.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 (Challenge to Arbitral Awards) and Section 37 (Appeal from Orders).
• Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 13(1).
• Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 58 and Section 18 (Extension of Limitation based on acknowledgment of liability).

Ratio Decidendi:

The Supreme Court held that the acknowledgment of debt during negotiations (Section 18 of the Limitation Act) allows for an extension of the limitation period. Furthermore, the arbitral tribunal's decision to hold both OPG and its parent company, Gita Power, jointly and severally liable was valid given their economic interdependence and active participation in the project. The court emphasized that procedural fairness was maintained throughout the arbitration process.

Subjects:

Arbitration, Commercial Dispute, Limitation Period, Joint Liability, Commercial Contracts, Power Generation, Joint Liability, Enforcement of Arbitral Award, Tax Liability, Liquidated Damages