NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA Vs. ALIMENTA S.A.
LAWS(SC)-2020-4-26
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on April 22,2020

National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation Of India Appellant
VERSUS
ALIMENTA S.A. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

F.A. TAMPLIN STEAMSHIP CO. LTD. VS. ANGLO-MEXICAN PETROLEUM PRODUCTS CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
DAVIS CONTRACTOR LTD VS. FAREHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
KUNJILAL MANOHAR DAS VS. DURGA PRASAD DEBI PROSAD [REFERRED TO]
GANGA SARAN VS. FIRM RAM CHARAN RAM GOPAL [REFERRED TO]
SATYABRATA GHOSE VS. MUGNEERAM BANGUR AND CO [REFERRED TO]
MULRAJ VS. MURTI RAGHUNATHLL MAHARAJ [REFERRED TO]
NAIHATI JUTE MILLS LIMITED VS. KHYALIRAM JAGANNATH [REFERRED TO]
BOOTHALINGA AGENCIES VS. V T C PORIASWAMI NADAR [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA DEVI VS. HARI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR SEN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SHAMLAL MURARI [REFERRED TO]
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY VS. DILIPKUMAR RAGHAVENDRANATH NADKARNI [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAM DASS VS. DOMINION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. BROJO NATH GANGULY / TARUN KANTI SENGUPTA [REFERRED TO]
RENUSAGAR POWER CO LIMITED GENERAL ELECTRIC CO VS. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO :RENUSAGAR POWER COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SURJIT SINGH VS. HARBANS SINGH [REFERRED TO]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION CO PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION VS. SAW PIPES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH VS. NANHKU [REFERRED TO]
ALL BENGAL EXCISE LICENSEES ASSOCIATION VS. RAGHAVENDRA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
GURUNATH MANOHAR PAVASKAR VS. NAGESH SIDDAPPA NAVALGUND [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL VS. UGRASEN [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR VS. P C ROY AND CO INDIA LTD [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANA CHANDRASEKHARA SHENOY AND BROS VS. R PALANIAPPA MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
LAL MAHAL LTD VS. PROGETTO GRANO SPA [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATE BUILDERS VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. KENNETH BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS LTD. [REFERRED TO]
SSANGYONG ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO LTD VS. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI) [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

MAHESHBHAI JIVRAJBHAI GUJARATI VS. KRISHNA PRAVINBHAI GUJARATI [LAWS(GJH)-2021-9-46] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

ARUN MISHRA,J. - (1.)The question involved in the present appeal is the enforceability of the foreign award. The main objections for its enforceability are (i) whether NAFED was unable to comply with the contractual obligation to export groundnut due to the Government's refusal?; (ii) whether NAFED could have been held liable in breach of contract to pay damages particularly in view of Clause 14 of the Agreement?; and (iii) whether enforcement of the award is against the public policy of India?
(2.)The NAFED and the Alimenta S.A. entered into a contract for the supply of 5,000 metric tonnes of Indian HPS groundnut (for short, "commodity"). Clause 11 of the contract provided that terms and conditions would be as per FOSFA, 20 Contract, a standard form of contract which pertains to the CIF contract. The contract entered into was not a Free on Board (FOB) contract.
(3.)NAFED was a canalizing agency for the Government of India for the exports of the commodity. For any export, which is to be carried forward to next year from the previous year, NAFED required the express permission and consent of the Government of India, being a canalizing agency. The said agreement was entered into by NAFED with the Alimenta S.A. at the rate of USD 765 per metric tonnes (Free on Board). The contract was for the season 1979-80. With the contracted quantity of 5000 metric tonnes, only 1900 metric tonnes could be shipped. The remaining quantity could not be shipped due to damage caused to crop by cyclone etc. in the Saurashtra region. The agreement dated 12.1.1980 was the first agreement. The transaction was governed by covenants such as Force Majeure and Prohibition contained in Clause 14 of the Agreement, whereby in case of prohibition of export by executive order or by law, the agreement would be treated as cancelled.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.