HLL BIOTECH LIMITED Vs. ETA ENGINEERING PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Captioned 'Arbitration Original Petition' [hereinafter 'Arb OP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been presented in this Court on 15/12/2021.

(2.) A perusal of the petition in the captioned Arb OP brings to light that the captioned Arb OP has been presented in this Court under Ss. 34(1), 34(2)(a)(iv) and 34(2)(b)(ii) of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity]. There will be some discussions infra elsewhere in this order about the provisions that have been invoked.

(3.) Captioned Arb OP has been presented assailing an 'arbitral award dtd. 18/9/2021' [hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of convenience and clarity] made by 'Arbitral Tribunal' ['AT'] constituted by a sole Arbitrator. Sole respondent before AT is lone petitioner before this Court and claimant before AT has been arrayed as lone respondent in captioned Arb OP. For the sake of convenience and clarity, petitioner in the captioned Arb OP shall be referred to as 'HLL' and respondent in captioned Arb OP shall be referred to as 'ETA'. HLL and ETA (post bid, offer and negotiations) had one purchase order and one service order (both dtd. 29/9/2015) as between them for values of Rs.3,69,29,065.00 (a little over Rs.3.69 Crores) and Rs.54,70,302.00(a little over Rs.54.70 Lakhs) totalling Rs.4,23,99,367.00 (a little over Rs.4.23 Crores). This 'purchase order and service order both dtd. 29/9/2015 together constitute a contract' [hereinafter 'said contract' for the sake of convenience and clarity] between HLL and ETA inter-alia for 'design, installation, fabrication, erection, testing and commissioning qua certain works at a place which goes by the name Integrated Vaccine Complex' [hereinafter 'said work' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. It is not necessary to dilate much on the nature of said work in this order as the challenge to impugned award is predicated on the terms of said contract and interpretation of the same in the impugned award by AT. This takes us to three provisions (alluded to supra elsewhere in this order) under which captioned Arb OP has been presented in this Court. First provision is Sec. 34(1) of A and C Act. This is generic as this merely says that one can take recourse to a Court against an arbitral award only by making an application for setting aside the award either under sub-sec. (2) or sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 34 of A and C Act. Second provision is Sec. 34(2)(a)(iv) of A and C Act. This talks about the arbitral award dealing with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or containing decision on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration. There is a proviso to this Sec. 34(2)(a)(iv) of A and C Act but it is not necessary to go into that owing to the nature of submissions that have been made. Third provision is Sec. 34(2)(b)(ii) of A and C Act. This provision turns on attacking an arbitral award on the ground that it is conflict with public policy of India. To be noted, there are two explanations to this Sec. 34(2)(b)(ii) of A and C Act which are very critical. There will be a reference to the same infra elsewhere in this order. Before proceeding further, it is made clear that the captioned Arb OP was taken up in the Admission Board in accordance with 'The Madras High Court (Arbitration) Rules, 2020' [hereinafter 'MHC Arbitration Rules' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and Rule 8 of MHC Arbitration Rules deals with procedure in relation to petitions under Sec. 34 of A and C Act. It (obviously) also deals with procedure qua petitions under Sec. 34 of A and C Act in the Admission Board.