High CourtsDivision Bench(2018) 02 DEL CK 0231

Directorate General Of Hydrocarbons Of India vs Overseas Drilling Limited

Delhi High Court · Decided on 6 February 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gita Mittal, J · C.Hari Shankar, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
First Appeal From Order (OS) No. 23 Of 2018, Civil Miscellaneous No. 4541, 4542 Of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 337 words

Gita Mittal, J

CM No.4542/2018(for exemption)

1.

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2.

The application is disposed of.

FAO(OS) 23/2018 & CM Nos.4541/2018 (for stay)

1.

Heard.

2.

This appeal challenges the order dated 6th December, 2017 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed OMP 23/2010 filed by it under Section

34 of the Arbitration Act. By way of the petition before the learned Single Judge, the appellant had challenged an Arbitral Award dated 29th August,

2009.

3.

We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant on the primary ground of challenge, to the effect that the Arbitral Award is patently illegal

and against the public policy of India for the reason that the Arbitral Tribunal had failed to and neglected to consider the terms of the contract and

travelled beyond the realm of the contract between the parties.

4.

We find that by the Arbitral Award dated 29th August, 2009, the Arbitral Tribunal has conclusively held that there was no term in the contract

relating to demobilization charges proportionate to the business. The learned Single Judge has after a detailed consideration, by the impugned order

dated 6th December, 2017 held that “the reasoning given by the learned arbitral tribunal is similar to what has been observed by me above and is in

consonance with the terms of the contract dated 09.03.2006 and need not be interfered. The learned arbitrator analysed various clauses qua

mobilisation/demobilization pricing and interest and rightly come to the conclusion the contract was not that of haulage and thus delayed payments

would also attract interest.â€​

5.

It is trite that findings of fact which arise from the contract and the material placed before the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be the subject matter of

consideration in any appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. No other ground is pressed in this appeal.

6.

The scope of examination under Section 37 by this court is limited.

7.

We don’t find any merit in this appeal and application which are hereby dismissed.